Hare Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.3.2006 ASI Gurnam Singh along with other police officials was going to village Bamal and when they reached near the canal bridge, village Kehru, Hare Ram Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 2 son of Banta Singh along with Sarpanch Jaswinder Singh came there and said Hare Ram got recovered his statement that he is resident of village Bamal and is a labourer. His son Jagtar Singh was married to Kulwinder Kaur daughter of Mukhtiar Singh about ten years back. His son was earlier in the Army, but later on, he came on pension. He stated that the relations between Jagtar Singh and Kulwinder Kaur were not cordial and they used to quarrel with each other. On 12.3.2008 also a dispute arose between his son and Kulwinder Kaur and, thereafter, Kulwinder Kaur submitted her father Mukhtiar Singh, uncle Hardev Singh, brother Hans Raj and mother Ajmer Kaur in village Bamal and they all took Kulwinder Kaur and the children with them to Dhuri and due to this fact, his son came under tension. On 22.3.2006, at about

8.30 p.m., he along with his son Jagtar Singh and one Jagtar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh were present in the house of his son Jagtar Singh and at that time, Jagtar Singh his son was saying that it is better to die, than to live such a life. He stated that they made him understand that there remains tensions in married life, so not to take this to heart and thereafter, Jagtar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh left for his house. He and his son Jagtar Singh went to sleep. His son was sleeping in the courtyard of Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 3 the house and he was sleeping in the room. On

23.3.2006 at about 6.00 am, he saw his son Jagtar Singh lying deed on a cot. He informed the respectables of the village. He stated that his son had committed suicide due to the behaviour of Kulwinder Kaur, father in law Mukhtiar Singh, brother in law Hans Raj, mother-in-law Ajmer Kaur and uncle Hardev Singh. The statement was read over and explained to Hare Ram, who after admitting it correct thumb marked the same and under his endorsement, ASI sent the same to the police station through PHG Jolly Singh, on the basis of which, formal FIR under Section 306 of the IPC was registered by ASI Satnam Singh, in police station, Dhuri. Then further investigation was conducted. During investigation, the spot was inspected. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing the necessary formalities, the body of the deceased was sent for autopsy. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to his legal heirs. HC Lakhjit Singh produced one parcel duly sealed with the seal bearing impression of letters SSS which was taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. The case property was deposited with the MHC. As per the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 1.4.2006, Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 4 Kulwinder Kaur, Ajmer Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh were joined in the investigation by ASI Gurnam Singh. The enquiry against Hardev Singh was got conducted on his application moved before the DSP, Dhuri, who found Hardev Singh innocent. As the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Kulwinder Kaur, Ajmer Kaur, Hans Raj, Mukhtiar Singh were released on bail and after completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, in para Nos. 17 and 18 of its judgment, has observed as under:- “After hearing both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel, I am of the view that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. The complainant has taken a contradictory stands. First of all, it is alleged that on 12.3.2006, Jagtar Singh had quarreled with Mukhtiar Singh, Ajmer Kaur, Baldev Singh, Hans Raj in his statement on 19.11.2008, whereas, in his statement recorded on 9.1.2008, it is deposed by him that on

12.32006, there was a quarrel between his son and his Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 5 wife and when his daughter in law namely Kulwinder Kaur accused No.1 called her parents they came in a car and took her along with his grand children to Dhuri and in cross-examination conducted on 2.12.2008. Hare Ram complainant said that his son did not move any application on 12.3.2006 against his wife nor he and his son ever moved any application in those ten years against Kulwinder Kaur. Whereas in evidence, the prosecution has also proved one application Ex.PX alleged to have been moved by deceased Jagtar Singh on 19.3.2006 whereas to the naked eye there appears a cutting on the date 12. It appears if the same has been changed from 19.3.2006 to 12.3.2006. Moreover, the complainant in his first statement recorded on 9.1.2008 deposed that on 19.3.2006, he along with his son went to file an application before SDM, Dhuri, but then in his second statement recorded on 19.11.2008, in last line of first para deposed that Jagtar Singh had gone alone to file the said application has been got proved by the prosecution from PW6 Jasvir Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of SDM, Dhuri. As per him, the application was dispatched for the first time making entry at serial No.587 on 23.3.2006. So, it proves, this application was not received in the office of SDM, Dhuri neither on 19.3.2006 Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 6 nor on 12.3.2006. It means, this application has been manipulated later on to get booked the accused in the present case also. Furthermore, the accused got compared the disputed signatures of Jagtar Singh Qi on this application Ex.PD from the Handwriting and fingerprint Expert Dr.Inderjit Singh with the standard signatures on the compromise dated 21.8.2004 and Hare Ram complainant in the last line of his cross-examination conducted on 2.12.2008 admitted the copy of compromise Ex.D1 and Dr.Inderjit Singh when appeared in the witness box as DW-3 not only proved the photographs Ex.D-2 to Ex.D-5 and their negatives Ex.D6 to Ex.D9 but also his expert opinion Ex.D1/A along with detail report and as per his opinion, the disputed signatures marked as Q1 is a product of forgery, impersonation and does not tally with standard signatures of Jagtar Singh marked as S1 to S3 i.e. they have been written by two different persons. Although the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in cross- examination, Handwriting Expert has submitted that these are not comparable, whereas, I myself have gone through the standard signatures and the disputed signatures. The pattern of signatures is totally different, which cannot be said to be because of natural variation at all. Jagtar Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 7 Singh in his standard signatures covers in the top of “R”. The whole of his signatures, but in disputed signatures, words are separate from each other. So, it means, the letter Ex.PX is nothing, but a forged and created document. Thereafter, no reliance can be placed on the same.

18. Now coming to the oral version of the complainant and the witnesses, it is PW2 Jagtar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh in his cross-examination said that he is aware of the fact that family members of Jagtar Singh had set ablaze Kulwinder Kaur and she was admitted in his hospital in the year 2000. Although, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in reply submitted that it is not proved from this statement of PW2 if Kulwinder Kaur was set to ablaze by the complainant, but the material question is whether she was set to ablaze in the house of her in-law's family. Admittedly, she was set ablaze in the house of her in laws and this fact has been deposed by the witness of the prosecution and is endorsed by DW-4 Dr.R.P.Jindal, who treated Kulwinder Kaur on 26.11.2002 came to him with 50% burn injuries. So, this shows the conduct of Kulwinder Kaur that she is such a pious lady that she did not even report the matter to the police, as she does not want to Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 8 spoil her relations with her in law's family and husband. However, the prosecution has levelled allegations that on

12.3.2008 there took place some quarrel in between Kulwinder Kaur and her husband deceased Jagtar Singh and thereafter, he started living in distress and tension and ultimately on 22.3.2006 in the presence of Jagtar Singh PW2 and complainant Hare Ram, he shown his desire of ending his life instead of living a tension full married family life, whereas, Hare Ram in his first statement recorded on 9.1.2008 has said that on

22.3.2006 Sukhdev Singh, his neighbourer advised his son that he should not worried about such a petty matters involving personal relations but his son was saying to his neighbourer that he would prefer to die than this dispute. However, in another statement recorded on second time on 19.11.2008 Hare Ram complainant introduced Jagtar Singh in place of Sukhdev Singh, his neighbourer, in the presence of whom, his son uttered the words that he would prefer to die instead of living such a disgustful life. As such, in these circumstances, statement of Hare Ram cannot be believed at all. Similarly of Jagtar Singh, whose name has been introduced later on by him in his statement also. So far as PW3 Jaswinder Singh is concerned, it is deposed by him in his examination in Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 9 chief that on 13.3.2006, there arose a dispute between Jagtar Singh and his wife Kulwinder Kaur and in cross- examination again said that he does not remember the earlier date, but lastly he visited Jagtar Singh on

13.3.2006. So, the person, who even does not know as to when, there took place fight between Jagtar Singh and his wife Kulwinder Kaur, then how such a person can be believed by the Court and he was asked specific question by the learned defence counsel that have you in your statement before the police said that Jagtar Singh used to say that he would prefer to die, than to leave such life. In reply, he shown his ignorance by saying that he does not remember. So, it means that Jagtar Singh deceased had never shown his anxious to end his life instead of living such a disgustful life. However, the prosecution witnesses have not even uttered a single word if on any occasion Kulwinder Kaur and her family members instigated or uttered such word provoking Jagtar Singh to end his life. Rather from 12.3.2006 till 23.3.2006, neither Kulwinder Kaur or her family members nor Jagtar Singh. So, the question of instigating and provoking him to take such drastic step of ending his life by consuming some poisonous substance does not arise at all.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while disbelieving Crl.Rev.No. 1444 of 2010 10 the prosecution case, are sound reasons and hence do not call for any interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. October 12, 2010 SABINA) JUDGE