***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL) --

CRM-59547-2006

Allowed as prayed for.

CRR-1985-2006

The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.03.2006 passed by the. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby respondent Nos.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

2. In short the case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2002 SI Kuldeep Singh was posted as SHO in police station, Zira. On that day he along with ASI Gurjant Singh and other police officials was present at the bus stand Bamb Nau. Complainant Tarvanjan Kaur came there and made her statement Ex.P-6 before SI Kuldeep Singh to the effect that she was a resident of village Markhai. Her husband Darshan Singh died about 16/17 years ago. She had three daughters and two sons and all were married. Her elder son Sukhminder Singh (now deceased) was married to Paramjit Kaur accused daughter of Hari Singh accused resident of village Shahwala three years ago. A son was born out of their wedlock, but that child had died about one year ago. Her son Sukhminder Singh was not having cordial relations with his wife Paramjit Kaur and with the family of his in-laws (accused persons). Paramjit Kaur accused wife of Sukhminder Singh deceased had herself left the house of her in-laws many times after quarrels and had returned back to the matrimonial house when the Panchayat got effected compromises between the parties. Now about 4/5 days ago, Paramjit Kaur had gone to her parental house at Shahwala after quarrelling with her son Sukhminder Singh deceased. Sukhminder Singh deceased had told her (the complainant) that his father-in-law and his family could kill him at any time. On 4.7.2022 at about 6.00 pm Sukhminder Singh and Kapoor Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of village Markhai and Lakha Singh resident of village Narang Singh Wala and her second son Rachhpal Singh and Bohar Singh son of Hari Singh resident of village Shahwala had gone to village Shahwala on their scooters. Bohar Singh returned back and had told her (complainant) that as the light of their scooter was not working, so he had returned back from Zira. Sukhmander Singh, Lakha Singh and Kapoor Singh had gone to village Shahwala. On 4.7.2002 Manjit Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of Markhai told her (the complainant) that he had received a telephonic message from village Shahwala that Sukhmander Singh had died. She (the complainant) told the entire matter to the Panchayat. Then, she along with her daughter Simarjit Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh and son-in-law Jaswinder Singh son of Lachhman Singh, Sawaran Singh son of Jarnail Singh residents of village Hottamala had gone to village Shahwala to the house of Hari Singh accused. The dead body of Sukhminder Singh was lying on the cot in the Bethak (Drawing room) of the house of Hari Singh accused. She (the complainant) had a suspicion that her son Sukhmander Singh had been murdered by his brother-in-law Sukhdev Singh alias Rama, his father-in-law Hari Singh, mother-in-law Jeeto, wife Paramjit Kaur and Veer Singh alias Veeru. They had given some poisonous substance to Sukhminder Singh.

3. On the aforesaid statement Ex.26 of Tarvanjan Kaur, SI Kuldeep Singh made his endorsement Ex. P6/A and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P6/D was recorded by Jalour Singh SI. Thereafter. St Kuldeep Singh went to the place of occurrence, where the dead body of Sukhmander Singh deceased was lying, which was identified by Simarjit Kaur and Jasvinder Singh, He prepared inquest report Ex. P2 and recorded the statements of the witnesses, He also sent the dead body for post mortem examination through HC Kuldeep Singh and Constable Hardeep Singh alongwith request Ex.P3, He also prepared rough site plan Ex.P12 of the place of occurrence. After the post mortem report, HC Kuldeep Singh produced before him the clothes removed from the dead body of Sukhmander Singh, SI Kuldeep Singh prepared the parcel of the same sealed with the coal bearing impression "KS” and took the same into police possession vide memo Ex,P13, attested by HC Kuldeep Singh, On return to the police station, he deposited the case property with MHC. On 16.7.2002, SI Kuldeep Singh arrested accused Hari Singh, Veer Singh and Sukhdev Singh, From their personal search nothing was recovered, Memos Sx.P14. Ex,P15 and Ex. P16 were prepared in this regard which were attested by HC Balbir Singh. Grounds of arrest were made known to the accused vide memo Ex.P17. On 29.9.2002, accused Jeeto wife of Hari Singh and Paramjit Kaur daughter of Hari Singh were arrested by ASI Gurjant Singh. After completion of the investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate.

4. After the committal of the case all the accused were charged under Section 302 IPC vide order dated 7.4.2001 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate its charge the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

PW1 Dr. Gurparkash Singh Bhinder, on 5.7.2002, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sukhmander Singh deceased at 5 P.M. and observed that there was no external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Rigor mortem was present on the body parts and post mortem staining was present at the back and fixed, sparing the pressure point. The Cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was organic phosphorus compound or an insecticides found in the contents of Ex.I (Jar containing stomach and its contents. Ex.II ( jar containing portion of small and large intestines with their contents), Ex. III (jar containing portion of each kidneys, each lungs, spleen, live and gall bladder, Ex.V vial containing blood from heart. No poison was detected in contents of Ex.IV (A jar containing preservative). He proved Ex.P1 carbon copy of the post mortem report and Ex.P2 inquest report, Ex.P3 police request and Ex.P3/A endorsement of SMO Civil Hospital. Sira. The report of the Chemical Examiner was proved as Ex.P4 and the report of the doctor based on this report was proved as Ex.P5.

PW2 Tarvanjan Kaur complainant of this case appeared and narrated the prosecution story as given above.

PW3 Lakhbir Singh deposed that on 4.7.2002 he had gone to the village of his maternal uncle for the cremation ceremony of the son-in-law of his maternal uncle alongwith his mother. He deposed that when they returned back at about 2/2.30 P.M. a female singer was singing in the village Narang Singh Wala in a fair. His mother went back home and he stayed to watch the he programme and when he left the programme, he met Sukhminder Singh and Kapoor Singh who had half a bottle of liquor. He deposed that he was also offered liquor and he consumed the liquor with them and after drinking half bottle of liquor, he was asked to bring one bottle of liquor which he brought. After consuming that bottle, Sukhminder Singh told him that he wanted to go to his sister in village Botianwala. Thereafter they went to the house of his sister. He asked for money from his sister, but he was not given any money on the pretext that the money had not been given by the commission agent. He deposed that thereafter they came to Markhai. There 05 of them consumed half a bottle of liquor i.e. Sukhmander Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Kapoor Singh, Bohat Singh and Kachhpal Singh. Thereafter Sukhwinder Singh said that he wanted to go to village Shahwala. Thereafter their scooter broke down on the way and they got it repaired and purchased half a bottle of liquor at Zira. The said half bottle was taken by Bohar Singh and Rachnpal Singh and came back to Markhai. He deposed that he alongwith Sukhminder Singh and Kapoor Singh want to Shahwala. There they purchased half a bottle of liquor at village Shahwala and they went to the house of Ram Singh, He was on his scooter. Kapoor Singh and Sukhminder Singh walked to the house of Ram Singh. Ram Singh said some derogatory words on which he returned back leaving Sukhminder Singh and Kapoor Singh in the house of Ram Singh. Sukhminder Singh returned at night. Next day he went to perform the last rites of the son-in-law of his maternal uncle and returned in the evening.

PW-4 Constable Bhupinder Singh, PW-5 HC Kuldeep Singh, PW-7 MHC Sukhwinder Singh and PW-9 Constable Hardeep Singh whose evidence was of formal character tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.P7, Ex.P8, Ex.P9 and Ex,P11 respectively.

PW6 ASI Gurjant Singh on 29.9.2002 raided the house of Hari Singh alongwith lady constable Bhupinder Kaur where Kulwant Kaur, Jeeto w/o Hari Singh and Paramjit Kaur d/o Hari Singh met them who were made conversant with the case and were arrested.

PW-8 Ravinder Singh Zeervi, Draftsman prepared the site plan(scaled) of the place of occurrence.

PW-10 SI Kuldeep Singh is the investigating officer of the case in hand who investigated the case as detailed above.

6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence. They took up a consolidated plea that they had been falsely implicated because Tarwanjan Kaur complainant had grievance with them that they had not given anything in the marriage of Sukhminder Singh and on suspicion that the sale consideration of the property sold by Sukhminder Singh had been given to them. However, Sukhminder Singh had consumed excessive liquor in the company of Jaswinder Singh, Lakha Singh and Kapoor Singh and later on he had come to their house.

7. Based on the evidence led, the private respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them vide judgment dated 21.09.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

8. The instant petition has been preferred against the aforementioned judgment of acquittal.

9. The Counsel for the complainant/petitioner contends that the complainant has given the prosecution version in detail. Paramjit Kaur wife of the deceased was seen sitting next to the body of her husband and other accused had run away showing their culpability. The IO PW-10 SI Kuldeep Singh has supported the prosecution case. Lakhbir Singh PW-3 also stated that the deceased had stayed back at the house of accused Sukhdev Singh. If there was inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence then the ocular evidence was to prevail. In fact the evidence of last seen and the recovery of the body from the house of the accused was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgement was liable to be set aside.

10. The Counsel for the State while supporting the petitioner contends that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused were liable to be convicted for having committed the offence in question.

11. The Counsel for the private respondents/accused on the other hand contends that merely because the dead body was recovered from the house of the accused was not sufficient to affix liability upon them in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. The FIR had been registered on suspicion and there was no eye witness, the case being one of circumstantial evidence. In fact the deceased was a drunkard and was selling his land to the determinent of his family. Lakhbir Singh PW-3 could not be believed. He admitted that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers. Manjit Singh who had informed the complainant party about the death of her son had not been examined as a prosecution witness and this was a fatal to the case of the prosecution as vital link evidence was missing. In fact the deceased had died due to excessive consumption of liquor. The medical evidence was completely contrary to the ocular account. No injury or sign of struggle was there on the body of the deceased which would go to show that the poison, if any, could not have been forcibly administered. He therefore contends that no fault could be found with the judgment of acquittal and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

13. Admittedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness. The statement of PW2 Tarvanjan Kaur mother of the deceased is also based on suspicion. She has not seen the deceased going to the house of the accused. Kapur Singh and Lakhbir Singh had alleged that they had left the accused in the house of Ram Singh. There is no evidence on the file that Sukhdev Singh is also known as Ram Singh. No witness has stated so. Kapur Singh who was left alongwith deceased Sukhminder Singh by PW2 Lakhbir Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, He has not been cited as a witness. Even Bohar Singh and Rachhpal Singh had not been examined who had left the above-said three persons at Zira. Manjit Singh who informed about the death of Sukhminder Singh to PW2 Tarvanjan Kaur has also not been examined or cited as a witness, Lakhbir Singh has given a statement which shows that the deceased had taken excessive liquor on that day. Moreover, his signed statement has not been produced or proved by the prosecution. The Head Constable who recorded his statement has not been examined. This witness has gone to the extent of saying that thereafter Sukhminder Singh had returned at night which also contradicts the whole prosecution story. In the site plans Ex.P10 and Ex. P12, the house of Ram Singh where PW3 Lakhbir Singh had allegedly left Kapur Singh and Sukhminder Singh has not been shown. There is no evidence on the file that Ram Singh or other accused are living together. It is also merely a suspicion that all the accused had administered organo phosphorus to deceased. No specific role played by each accused has been stated or proved. PW2 in her examination- in-chief stated that deceased Sukhminder Singh told her many times that his in-laws would kill him any time. If the deceased had made such a statement to his mother then he could not be expected to have visited the house of his in-laws i.e. the accused. Further no application was given by the deceased to the police regarding any threat faced by him.

If for the sake of arguments the prosecution story was admitted to be correct that all the accused forcibly administered some insecticide to deceased Sukhminder Singh, then it could be expected that they would keep him in their house after administering such a insecticide. Further, the presence of other accused in the house is not established, PW2 Tarvanjan Kaur had stated that when she visited the house of accused, then only Paramjit Kaur widow of deceased Sukhminder Singh was there near the dead body and no other accused was there. This fact also leads to the conclusion that the accused were not present at that time. So there was no question of their administering any organo phosphorus compound forcibly to the deceased.

There is also no evidence on the file that when Lakhbir Singh left Kapur Singh and Sukhminder Singh in the house of Ram Singh, then all the accused were present in that house. This fact is also corroborated from the testimony of PW1 Dr. Gurparkash Singh Bhinder who has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that no external injury was present on the body of the deceased. Had the deceased been administered the insecticide forcibly, then there would have been external injuries on his body.

Admittedly, there were strained relations between deceased Sukhminder Singh and Paramjit Kaur accused. PW2 Tarvanjan Kaur is inimical towards the accused, So her statement cannot be relied upon in the absence of any corroborative evidence. There is no other evidence available on the file connecting the accused with the offence. At the most it can be said from the evidence available on the file that the dead body of Sukhminder Singh deceased was recovered from the house of the accused which is not sufficient to connect all the accused with the offence.

The prosecution case is also doubtful as the prosecution has withheld the best evidence i.e. Kapur Singh, Manjit Singh, Bohar Singh, Rachhpal Singh and the Head Constable who recorded the statement of PW3 Lakhbir Singh.

14. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Therefore, the present revision petition stands dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********