Criminal Revision No.1055 of 2001 [1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Revision No.1055 of 2001
Decided on : February 12, 2009
Ram Parkash
… Petitioner
VERSUS
Arjun Singh and others
… Respondents
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.A.S.Virk,
Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
Mr.Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana.
***
A.N.JINDAL, J.-
Complainant – Ram Parkash, elder brother of Gopal (deceased)
has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2000
passed by Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby, respondents No.1 to 3 –
accused (herein referred as respondents) were acquitted of the charges
under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Criminal Revision No.1055 of 2001 [2 ]
Precise facts of the case are that on 9.1.1997, ASI Jagdish
Chander, In-charge Police Post Taroari, Police Station Butana went to
General Hospital, Karnal on receipt of a ruqa, and Banarsi was found
present in the Hospital by the side of the dead body of his son Gopal. At
about 10.00 a.m, Banarsi made his statement before ASI Jagdish Chander
that one Prem son of Ram Lal resident of Taroari informed him that his son
Gopal was lying unconscious at General Hospital, Karnal, upon which he
along with other persons reached there. Phool Chand son of Ram
Chander told him that on that very day at 8.30 a.m, he had gone to answer
the call of nature and on his way back, when he reached near the fields of
Banarsi, he saw Atra Balmiki, who told him that Gopal was vomitting.
Banarsi while making a statement before the police on 9.1.1997 did not
suspect anyone as perpetrator of the crime and he thought that his son had
committed suicide. However, ten days thereafter, on the statement of Ram
Parkash (petitioner), who is real elder brother of deceased Gopal, the
present case was registered and the accused were nominated as preparators
of the crime. Challan was presented against them.
On commitment of the case, the accused were charged under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the trial resulted in
acquittal of the respondents. No appeal has been filed by the State and this
revision is by complainant – Ram Parkash.
Arguments heard and record perused.
Criminal Revision No.1055 of 2001 [3 ]
Admittedly, civil as well as criminal litigation are pending
between the accused and the complainant parties. On 9.1.1997, i.e, the
day of occurrence, the complainant did not suspect anyone as perpetrator of
the crime, yet after ten days of the occurrence, on the statement of Ram
Parkash, the case was registered against the respondents.
PWs Ram Parkash as well as Siya Ram had accompanied
Banarsi to the Hospital on the day of occurrence. Had they really seen the
occurrence, then they would have immediately come forward straightway
before the Police on that very day to depose against the respondents,
alleging themselves to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The police had
met Siya Ram and Ram Parkash on the day of occurrence, when they were
in the Hospital, but they did not disclose at that time, if they had seen the
occurrence. No reason has been assigned as to why they did not nominate
the respondents as accused on that very day, when they had the knowledge
of the same and seen the occurrence. Ram Parkash (petitioner) being the
son of Banarsi and brother of Gopal (deceased) as well as Siya Ram, being
their relatives, could go to any extent to support the cause of the
complainant, but for the reasons, afore-stated, the statement of either of the
aforesaid persons cannot be relied upon, at any cost. The Trial Court after
appreciation of the entire evidence in the right perspective reached to the
right conclusion acquitting the respondents, which does not call for any
interference by this Court.
The law is well-settled that against an order of acquittal,
interference would be called for only when the judgment is palpably
Criminal Revision No.1055 of 2001 [4 ]
perverse and is based on a misreading of the evidence. However, it is
equally settled that where two views are possible, then the one taken by the
Trial Court should not be disturbed.
Resultantly, the revision is dismissed.
February 12, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE