IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.693-MA of 2008
Date of Decision: 20.01.2009
Videsh Kumar Sharma
Appellant
Versus
Kanha Ram and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr.J.S.Thind, Advocate for the applicant
.....
Jasbir Singh, J.
Applicant- Videsh Kumar Sharma filed a criminal complaint
against the respondents for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 302/34/120-B IPC. His complaint was dismissed vide judgment
dated 1.10.2008. Hence, this application with a prayer to grant him leave to
file an appeal against that judgment.
Facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court, in paragraph No.2
of its judgment, reads thus:-
“In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is
resident of Ellenabad and he is doing job in private sector. He
was having two sons out of which Surinder @ Gattu who used to
work in Ellenabad Grain Market as Accountant at Booth No.7;
and was having age of 20 years. He further stated that about
one month prior to the present occurrence i.e. on 7.5.2001 at
about 10.00 p.m. his son Surender alias Gattu came from the
Criminal Misc. No.693-MA of 2008 2shop and Kanha Ram accused no.1 also met him in the street
and then accused started abusing him. On hearing the same, he
along with his family members came out from the house and in
their presence, the said accused was saying to him that his
money should be paid. He has acquaintance with the police
because he runs Satta Ki Khaiwala in Ellanabad. He also
threatened that he will implicate in such a case that he will
remember. On the next day accused again came to his house
and also threatened to him as well as his son Surinder @ Gattu
by saying that he would cause injuries to his son and he has
some bad elements with him and they will eliminate Surinder @
Gattu and his dead body will be thrown in the canal. Since, he
has good relation with the police, therefore, police would not
take any action against him. Not only this he also gave a crutch
blow hitting on the hand of his son and the complainant along
with his wife and brother -in-law of his son, rescued him from
his clutches. When he was leaving the spot he also threatened
that some day they would found the dead body of deceased and
they would not be in a position to recognize the same.
3. It is further case of the complainant that accused
no.2 Babli @ Vinod accused no.2 alongwith bad elements found
roaming near his house for 3-4 times. They also threatened the
complainant that he should not indulge with Kanha accused
no.1 otherwise they would collect a heap of dead bodies and at
that time Babli accused no.2 was armed with a knife. Accused
Criminal Misc. No.693-MA of 2008 3No.1 runs a Satta Ki Khaiwali in the Chaubara of accused no.2.
It is his further case that accused no.1 and 2 with the help of
bad elements go disappeared Surinder @ Gattu son of
complainant and on 9.06.2004 his dead body was found in the
Grain Market. The aforesaid accused have murdered his son
and after doing the same his dead body was thrown in the Grain
Market with intention that murder may be converted into
suicide.”
The complainant has further stated that rope, which was used for
hanging the dead body of his son, was so weak, that it could not have borne
weight of the dead body. By stating that the blood was oozing out from the
nose, there were many injuries on the eyes, nose and back of the deceased,
complainant submitted that it was a case of murder. Complainant has further
stated that matter was informed to the police. Dead body was got removed.
Inquest report was also prepared, the complainant was assured that action
shall be taken against the culprits, however, nothing was done. It was further
stated that doctor gave wrong report at the time of post-mortem examination
of the dead body. In preliminary evidence, complainant produced seven
witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove his
case. Vide order dated 3.11.2007, the trial Court on appraisal of preliminary
evidence, led by the applicant-complainant, summoned respondents No.1 and
2, to face the trial. Thereafter, the trial Court, after hearing counsel for both
the parties, acquitted both the persons mentioned above, vide impugned
judgment. Hence, this application.
Learned counsel for the applicant heard.
Criminal Misc. No.693-MA of 2008 4
He has taken us through the contents of judgment, under
challenge and after looking at the same, we are convinced that view taken by
the trial Court was possible. The trial Court has noticed that after death of
his son, applicant-complainant gave a different version when matter was
reported to the police on 9.6.2004. At that time, it was stated before the
police that his son had committed suicide. The complainant made above said
statement, in the presence of his son Kamal Kant. The trial Court has also
looked into report made by the doctor, who has conducted autopsy on the
dead body, wherein it was mentioned that death was result of asphyxia.
Ligature mark was present on the neck and blood was oozing out from the
nose. The Court has also noticed that main accused Kanha Ram is a lame
person, his leg had been amputated and he could walk only with the help of
crutches as such, it was not possible for him to commit murder of the
deceased. So far as other accused are concerned, against them there was
charge of conspiracy alone. We feel that the view taken by the trial Court is
perfectly justified and need no interference. Counsel for the applicant has
failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court.
Even in cases where two views are possible, the view taken by
the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha
K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where,
in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to
be adopted by the Court.
Criminal Misc. No.693-MA of 2008 5
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa
Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, has opined as under:-
“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be
examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)
SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against
acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal
were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and
merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a
different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”
No case is made out to interfere at the instance of the applicant.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
20.01.2009 (Jora Singh)
gk Judge