Gulzari Lal v. State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of acquittal dated 15.01.09, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

2. The marriage of the nephew of the complainant namely Sonu, was to be solemnized, on 06.02.07, in village Karnala and brother of the complainant, namely Gokal Chand, alongwith his family, had come to attend that marriage. Kulwant Singh, accused (now respondent), had also come there. At about 7.30 PM, the accused took Criminal Revision No. 787 of 2009 2 Gokal Chand, with him, in a jeep, to attend election duty. However, later on, Gokal Chand, did not turn up and his dead body was found. It was stated that the accused, was on visiting terms with Gokal Chand, and developed illicit relations with his wife. Gokal Chand, used to prevent the accused, from visiting his house. It was further stated that, with a view to remove the stumbling block, from their way, the accused and the wife of Gokal Chand, namely Raj Rani, committed his (Gokal Chands') murder. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR, was registered. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused, was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

4. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Puneet Arora (PW1), Dilbagh Singh, Head Constable (PW2), Ramesh Chander (PW3), Kartar Singh (PW4), Vikramjit Singh (PW5), Guljari Lal, complainant (PW6), Ved Parkash (PW7), Hazari Lal (PW8), Ravinder Singh, Sub Inspector (PW9), and ,Jarnail Singh, Sub Inspector (PW10). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.

6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the Criminal Revision No. 787 of 2009 3 incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused, on the following grounds:- (i) The story of last seen of Gokal Chand with the accused, and that, he (Gokal Chand), was taken by the accused, in his gypsy, for election duty, was not reliable, as in the statement, made by the complainant, first in point of time, he did not disclose this factum. (ii) That Kartar Singh, PW4, before whom, the extra judicial confession, was allegedly made, did not support the case of the prosecution.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.

9. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the trial Court, took into consideration the minor contradictions, in the statements of the witnesses, to come to the conclusion, that it was not proved beyond doubt, that Gokal Chand, was taken by the accused/respondent No. 2, in gypsy, from the house of Gulzari Lal, for election duty. He further submitted that such like minor discrepancies and contradictions, could not be taken into consideration, for acquitting the accused. He further submitted that, it was proved, that the accused, Criminal Revision No. 787 of 2009 4 had developed illicit relations with Raj Rani wife of the deceased, and he was objecting to it. He further submitted that, with a view to remove that hurdle, the murder of the deceased, was committed, by the accused. He further submitted that the judgement of acquittal, recorded by the trial Court, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside.

11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that in a revision, filed by a private complainant, against the judgement of acquittal, the scope of interference is very limited. The Revisional Court, can only interfere, if it comes to the conclusion, that the same, is perverse or illegal, on account of complete misreading or misappreciation of evidence or that material pieces of evidence, had been left out of consideration. Gulzari Lal, PW6, made a statement DA/1, first in point of time, regarding the disappearance of Gokal Chand. In that statement, he did not state even a single word, that Gokal Chand, was taken away, by the accused, from his house, in gypsy, for election duty. When he made statement PF, on the basis whereof, FIR, was registered, he stated regarding the taking away of Gokal Chand, by the accused, in his gypsy, for election duty. Statement DA/1, was, thus, rightly held by the trial Court, to be completely contradictory to the statement PF, made by Gulzari Lal, on the basis whereof, the FIR, was registered. Not only this, DA/1 the statement, which was made by Gulzari Lal and Raj Rani, also falsified the Criminal Revision No. 787 of 2009 5 evidence of Hazari Lal, PW8, that Gokal Chand alongwith Raj Rani, left with Kulwant Singh, accused, in his gypsy. The trial Court, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that such a material contradiction, in the statements of Gulzari Lal, clearly showed, that Gokal Chand, deceased, was not taken away by Kulwant Singh, accused in his presence. So the theory of last seen, fell to the ground. Even otherwise, in the absence of any other evidence, as the person, before whom, the extra judicial confession, was allegedly made, by the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution, the circumstance of last seen, could not be said to be sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused, as held in State of Punjab Vs. Sarup Singh, 1998(2), Recent Criminal Reports, 417. The trial Court, on correct reading of the prosecution evidence and due appreciation thereof, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused, was entitled to acquittal. The judgement of the trial Court, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld.

12. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed.

24.02.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE