Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002
Date of Decision : 8.10.2009.
Hakam Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate,
Amicus-Curiae for the petitioner.
Mr. DS Brar DAG Punjab.
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
NAWAB SINGH J.
This revision petition has been filed by the
complainant against the judgment dated October 31st, 2001 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, respondents No.2
to 4 were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 193
dated October 1st, 1996 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code Police Station Dhuri, district Sangrur.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on September
8th, 1996, accused-respondents No.2 to 4 (for short ‘respondents’)
along with 20/25 persons brought the dead bodies of Malkiat Singh
and Balla Singh from village Ladda in a truck to their village Shahpur
Kalan. They informed Sarwan Singh-complainant father of Malkiat
Singh deceased that the deceased had consumed insecticide by
mistake and died. Post-Mortem-Examination was not conducted on
the dead-bodies because the respondents wanted to cremate them
without Post-Mortem Examination. The dead bodies were cremated.
3. On September 27th, 1996, that is, after 19 days of
Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002 2
the occurrence, Sarwan Singh-complainant came to know that the
respondents offered liquor to the deceased after mixing insecticide.
On account of that, they died.
4. On September 29th, 1996 Sarwan Singh, Baldev
Singh, Member Panchayat, Thakra Lambardar and Gurdev Singh
were present in the house of Baldev Singh. Gurcharan Singh and
Jagjit Singh-respondents came there and made extra-judicial
confession before them begging that they should be pardoned for
making the deceased to drink liquor mixed with insecticide. After
making extra-judicial confession, both the respondents left the house
of Baldev Singh.
5. On October 1st, 1996, that is, after two days of
making the alleged extra-judicial confession by the respondents,
Sarwan Singh reached the Police Station and reported the matter
whereupon, First Information Report (Exhibit P-8) was recorded.
6. Motive for the crime alleged was that Harnek
Singh-respondent No.4 is issueless. He was married to Mukhtiar
Kaur. The couple adopted Gurcharan Singh-respondent No.1.
Harnek Singh executed a Will in favour of Gurcharan Singh. Niece of
Mukhtiar Kaur was married to Malkiat Singh (deceased). Gurcharan
Singh and Harnek Singh apprehended that Mukhatiar Kaur may
prevail upon Harnek Singh to change his Will and persuade him to
execute another Will in favour of Malkiat Singh and for that reason
they poisoned Malkiat Singh and Balla Singh to death.
7. It may be stated at the outset that Jagjit Singh and
Harnek Singh respondents No.3 and 4 respectively were not
challaned by the Police as they were found innocent. Later on, on the
application filed under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure
both of them were summoned to face trial along with Gurcharan
Singh.
8. The entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence.
The only piece of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the
prosecution and discarded by the learned trial Judge was that
Gurcharan Singh and Jagjit Singh made extra-judicial confession
Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002 3
before Sarwan Singh and others on September 29th, 1996.
Surprisingly, Sarwan Singh did not opt to lodge the report to the
Police even after the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the
duo to him. He kept on waiting for two days for reporting the matter
for the reasons best known to him. He also did not inform the Police
when for the first time on September 27th, 1997 he came to know
about the involvement of the accused in the alleged commission of
the crime. The respondents No.2 and 3 were also not captured at the
house of Baldev Singh particularly, when five persons were present
there and they allowed them to go from there. Any prudent man
would have at least tried to capture the accused when he comes to
know that he was the person who committed the murder. A criminal
would not make extra-judicial confession simply for the heck of it. It is
only in rare circumstances that a criminal would confess his guilt of
murder. Had the respondents been involved in the murder of Malkiat
Singh and Balla Singh, they would not have brought the dead-bodies
of the deceased to their house and that too, along with 20/25
persons of village Ladda, where the deceased allegedly consumed
liquor mixed with insecticide. It appears that the evidence of extra-
judicial confession before Sarwan Singh is manufactured one so, it
fails to inspire confidence.
9. In view of above, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment on any count which would call for
the interference of this Court while exercising its reversional
jurisdiction.
10. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(NAWAB SINGH)
JUDGE
8.10.2009.
SN