Jagir Singh v. Amrik Singh & Ors.

17.12.2007. At that time counsel for the parties had appeared in Court. None appeared for the parties when the matter was taken up for hearing on 9.9.2009 and it was adjourned to

18.9.2009. On 18.9.2009 again, counsel for the parties did not choose to appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing and the revision petition was adjourned to 9.10.2009. The matter remained on the Board of this Court. On 25.1.2010 again, none appeared for the parties when this revision petition was taken up for hearing. After perusing the record, the matter was reserved. Even thereafter, no body chose to appear for the parties. On 27.12.1999, Inspector Balbir Singh had received a telephonic message from one Ajit Singh resident of Village Dheer that he had found dead body of an unidentified person, aged about 34/35 years in his agricultural fields having multiple injuries caused with sharp edged weapon. On receipt of this information, formal F.I.R was recorded. Acting upon this information, Inspector Balbir Singh accompanied by other police officials went to the spot in Village Dheer and found dead body of an identified person. Inspector Balbir Singh prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Photographs of the dead body were taken at the spot. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted on

28.12.1999 by Dr.Gurmit Singh (P.W.1), who had observed incised wound on the middle of nose starting from right cheek to -3- Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2004. left cheek, incised wound starting from base of nose left side towards left ear, big incised wound starting from the back of left ear to back of skull bone, occipital region extending upto mastoid bone of right year and reddish abrasion on the skin of right leg lower part, of the dead body. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within half an hour and between death and post mortem it was 24 to 36 hours. The Investigating Officer had got the photographs of the deceased published in the newspaper on 28.12.1999. On 3.5.2001, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of petitioner-complainant Jagir Singh. Statements of other P.Ws were recorded later on during investigation. The accused-respondents were arrested during investigation. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused-respondents was presented before the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as sixteen witnesses witnesses. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. However, no evidence was led by them in defence. -4- Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2004. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused under Sections 302/404/34 of the Code by leading any cogent and convincing evidence and beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused, as mentioned above. The legal position as to the powers of this Court in revision in the matter of interference with the order of acquittal is no longer res integra, as the law in this regard is very well settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 S.C 1788 held thus: “ It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.” In the case of Avtar Singh v. State of Madhya -5- Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2004. Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1188, the Apex Court held: “ This Court has repeatedly held that although in an appeal against acquittal, the powers of the High Court in dealing with the case are as extensive as of the trial Court, but before reversing the acquittal, the High Court should bear in mind that the initial presumption of the innocence of the accused is in no way weakened, if not reinforced, by his acquittal at the trial, and further, the opinion of the trial Court which has the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, as to the value of their evidence should not be lightly discarded. Where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, and the trial Court has opted for one favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the same merely on he ground that if it were in the position of the trial Court, it would have taken the alternative view and convicted the accused accordingly.” In the instant case, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests squarely on the -6- Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2004. circumstantial evidence. Before the circumstantial evidence is accepted, it has to satisfy that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence; that cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt; and that there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. In this case, petitioner Jagir Singh, who is father of Gurbhej Singh, deceased in this case, while deposing in Court, stated that his son had left with `Peter Rehra' to earn his livelihood about two and a half years back, but he had not returned nor could he be located despite their hectic search. Later on, they identified the dead -7- Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2004. body of Gurbhej Singh lying near the saw mill of village Dheer after coming to know about the same through news item published in the newspaper. When cross-examined Jagir Singh (P.W.8), admitted that his son was married in village Jandiala Guru, but he did not know the name of father-in-law of his deceased son. Pirthi Pal (P.W.4), had allegedly heard the conversation of accused- respondents Amrik Singh, Kashmir Singh and Lakhbir Singh in a liquor shop about killing of Gurbhej Singh and snatching his `Peter Rehra'. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the names of accused-respondents Kashmir Singh and Lakhbir Singh. He knew them by face. He further admitted that Gurbhej Singh (deceased) was related to his daughter-in-law. Strangely enough, this witness had not disclosed to any one about what he had heard in the liquor vend. Harcharan Singh (P.W.13) deposed about the extra judicial confession allegedly suffered by Lakhbir Singh accused about killing of Gurbhej Singh after about one and a half years of the occurrence at the house of said Harcharan Singh. Lakhbir Singh did not belong to the village of Harcharan Singh. Neither he was related to Harcharan Singh. It is not believable that an accused would admit before a stranger about having committed a heinous crime of murder. Harcharan Singh (P.W.13) admitted that he had come to know about the murder of Gurbhej Singh in December, 1999 and that Gurbhej Singh was married in his village i.e Jandiala Guru prior to the time when accused Lakhbir Singh had made the extra -8- Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2004. judicial confession before him. Had the accused suffered any such extra judicial confession before Harcharan Singh (P.W.13), he would have been the first person to inform about it to Ved Parkash, father-in-law of the deceased and Jagir Singh, father of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the alleged disclosure statement by accused Kashmir Singh about keeping concealed purse of the deceased having photograph of the deceased and one identity card in the compound of his house and their consequent recovery and another disclosure statement suffered by accused Amrik Singh regarding concealment of `Datar' on the edge of the drain and its consequent recovery cannot be said to be a strong circumstance against the accused. Further, recovery of one silver ring on which words `GS' were inscribed from accused Lakhbir Singh also does not in any way connect him with the crime. It is highly improbable that the accused would retain the incriminating articles in their possession after a long period of one and a half years. As such, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality nor it has caused miscarriage of justice. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal -9- Criminal Revision No.1342 of 2004. Procedure. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 4, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE