Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 72 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Pawan Kumar

2008-01-14

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.D.ANAND

body2008
Judgment 1. The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 302/326/34 IPC for the murder of Vinita and Nandini and causing injuries to Shivani alias Shakti. 2. Case of the prosecution is that Bhopal Singh PW10 was married to Harbiri about 25 years ago who died. He had two sons and a daughter. His wife Harbiri died four years prior to the occurrence. His son Sandeep (accused, who died) was married few months after the death of Harbiri. Bhopal Singh performed a second marriage with Vinita two years prior to the occurrence and a baby girl Nandini was born out of the marriage about three months prior to the occurrence. Sandeep did not like the idea of his father performing second marriage Bhopal Singh had called Shivani alias Shakti, sister of his wife Vinita to help Vinita after the delivery. On 20.3.2006, at 7.45 AM, Bhopal Singh had gone for his duty. At 8.40 AM, he received a telephone call from his wife that Sandeep and two other boys had come to their residence and were quarrelling with her. Bhopal Singh went to his residence and found that Sandeep and his accomplices were standing with their clothes stained with blood. Sandeep was carrying a dagger and other two were having knifes. On arrival of Bhopal Singh, they slipped away. Bhopal Singh went upstairs and found the dead body of Vinita, drenched in blood lying in the kitchen. He also found his sister-in-law Shivani lying unconscious and his daughter Nandini dead on the floor of the living room. He took Shivani alias Shakti to the J.P. Hospital for medical aid. He also lodged FIR. The respondents were identified as accomplices of Sandeep. They were already facing FIR No. 90 dated 29.5.2002 under Sections 323, 324, 352 and 504 IPC and were in custody in Gaziabad jail. They were earlier on bail but they got their bail cancelled and surrendered to custody. 3. After investigation, the respondents were sent up for trial. The prosecution examined Constable Ram Niwas PW1, Babu Ram, Photographer PW2, HC Rakesh Kumar PW3, Constable Ramesh Kuamr PW4, Shivani @ Shakti PW5, Dr. Manisha Singh PW6, Dr. Amit Goel PW7, ASI Suresh Kumar PW8, Dr. SK Rathi PW9, Bhopal Singh PW10, SI Baljeet Singh PW11 and SI Karan Pal Singh PW12. 4. The prosecution examined Constable Ram Niwas PW1, Babu Ram, Photographer PW2, HC Rakesh Kumar PW3, Constable Ramesh Kuamr PW4, Shivani @ Shakti PW5, Dr. Manisha Singh PW6, Dr. Amit Goel PW7, ASI Suresh Kumar PW8, Dr. SK Rathi PW9, Bhopal Singh PW10, SI Baljeet Singh PW11 and SI Karan Pal Singh PW12. 4. The trial court after considering the evidence on record held that Sandeep who was attributed the role of causing both the deaths by Shivani, the only eye witness was murdered on or about March 21, 2006 and the respondents were facing trial for the said murder. Piror to their being identified in the witness box, the names of the respondents were never mentioned by any of the witnesses, though a supplementary statement of PW 10 Bhopal Singh was recorded. The trial court was of the view that in such circumstances, the respondents could not be linked to the crime. The trial court observed that PW5 Shivani alias Shakti, the injured eye witness deposed that all the fatal injuries were caused to Vinita as well as Nandini by Sandeep. She did not give any specific role to the respondents. She did not know the respondents earlier and identified the accused for the first time in court. No identification parade was held. The accused were not named in the FIR. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgement. 6. Having regard to the fact that the respondents-accused were not given any role in causing the death by the prime witness Ms. Shivani PW5, the view taken by the trial court is certainly a possible view and acquittal of the respondents cannot be held to be unreasonable. 7. Law on interference with the acquittal is well settled. 8. 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. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat). 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. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat). 9. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.