Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1131 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Romesh Kumar

2007-05-15

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2007
Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the State to challenge acquittal of the respondents of the charge of murder of Madan Lal. 2. Case of the prosecution, as narrated by Sushil Kumar PW10, in his statement Ex.PR, is that his brother Madan Lal, deceased was running a Karyana shop at Ludhiana. On 6.9.1994 at 7 AM, both the accused with another person who was bearing mustaches came to their house and took Madan Lal with them. At 8 AM, he came to know that Madan Lal was taking liquor in the Jamalpur liquor vend. He went to the said place and found Madan Lal taking liquor alongwith the accused and their companions. Romesh Kumar, accused picked up table fan and threw at the face of the deceased who received injuries on his head and became unconscious and died on the spot. The accused ran away. On this statement, PW12 Inspector Prem Singh took up the investigation. He visited the place of occurrence, lifted blood stained earth, prepared inquest report, sent the body for post-mortem examination, prepared site plan. Dr. US Sooch PW2 conducted post-mortem examination and found the cause of death to be head injury, which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After investigation, the accused were challaned. 3. The prosecution examined Manoharjit Singh Randhawa PW1, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, Dr. US Sooch PW2, AMHC Kuldip Singh PW3, Constable Maghar Singh PW4, Constable Sikander Singh PW5, Constable Roor Singh PW6 formal witnesses, Harminder Singh, Draftsman PW7, Constable Randhir Singh PW8 formal witness, Head Constable Darbara Singh PW9, formal witness, Sushil Kumar complainant PW10, Jarnail Singh, eye witness PW11 and Inspector Prem Singh, Investigating Officer PW12. 4. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. 5. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents. It was, inter-alia, observed : (i) Owner/salesman of the country liquor vend where the occurrence took place, was not examined. (ii) Version given by Sushil Kumar PW10 of having witnessed the occurrence, was not reliable and was improvement over the original version given in his statement Ex.PR, wherein he did not mention any blow having been caused by Jatinder Mohan alias Babli alias Pappu. (ii) Version given by Sushil Kumar PW10 of having witnessed the occurrence, was not reliable and was improvement over the original version given in his statement Ex.PR, wherein he did not mention any blow having been caused by Jatinder Mohan alias Babli alias Pappu. He made a supplementary statement in the light of medical evidence and alleged that Jatinder Mohan alias Babli alias Pappu had picked up iron rod and given various blows. Sushil Kumar PW10 was, thus, not a reliable witness. (iii) Presence of PW11 Jarnail Singh, who claimed to be eye witness, was doubtful. (iv) The report of viscera examination was not forthcoming to corroborate the cause of death. (v) Medical evidence was contrary to the prosecution case. Post mortem examination was done on 6.9.1994 at 4.40 PM within eight hours of death but according to the doctor, the death had taken place more than 12 hours earlier. (vi) The accused was arrested on 18.9.1994 but specimen finger prints were obtained from him only on 15.11.1994. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the findings recorded by the trial court for acquittal of the respondents. 7. Evidence of eye witnesses PW10 Sushil Kumar and PW11-Jarnail Singh has been held to be unreliable and discrepant. PW10 Sushil Kumar has made improvement and given supplementary version after taking into account the medical evidence. The presence of PW11 Jarnail Singh has been held to be doubtful. Valid reasons have been given by the trial court for its conclusion. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution version about the time of death, which casts doubt about the eye witnesses having seen the occurrence. The view taken by the trial court is certainly a possible view and cannot be held to be perverse so as to call for interference with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. 8. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Honble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed :- "21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 Cri LJ 1783)). The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 Cri LJ 1783)). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 : AIR 1996 SC 2035 : (1996 Cri LJ 2867): "While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions." 9. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.