Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 585 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Sajjan

2011-02-15

M.JEYAPAUL, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2011
JUDGMENT SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. - The State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 4.6.2010, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Vide the said judgment, the learned trial court has convicted accused (respondents herein), namely Sajjan and Baljit, husband and brother-in-law (younger brother of husband) of deceased Meena, for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each under Section 304-B, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each, under Section 498-A Crl. Misc. No. A-1093-M of 2010 -2IPC. However, both the respondents have been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and respondent No.1 Sajjan has also been acquitted of the charge under Section 309 IPC. 2. In this application, the prayer of the State of Haryana is that the learned trial court, while ignoring the credible evidence available on the record, has wrongly acquitted both the respondents for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. In this case, as per the prosecution version, which is based upon the statement Rameshwar (PW.8), his niece Meena was murdered by both the respondents on account of giving less dowry. As per the prosecution version, on 20.8.12007, dead body of Meena, having cut on her neck, was found in the field near Barwala-Hansi road. According to the post mortem report, she died due to neck injury. The first accused, namely Sajjan (husband of deceased) was also medico legally examined on the day of occurrence and six injuries were found on his body. 4. In the present case, there was no eye witness and case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution relied upon the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death; and the evidence of extra judicial confession, made by the second accused, namely Baljit before PW.6 Diwan Singh, Sarpanch of the parental village of the deceased. 5. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution relied upon the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death; and the evidence of extra judicial confession, made by the second accused, namely Baljit before PW.6 Diwan Singh, Sarpanch of the parental village of the deceased. 5. The trial court, while taking into consideration the nature of death; harassment of Meena on account of demand of dowry just before her Crl. Misc. No. A-1093-M of 2010 -3death; and the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1887, convicted both the accused under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. However, they were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, while coming to the conclusion that the evidence of extra judicial confession made by only one accused, and that too before the Sarpanch of the parental village of the deceased, is not reliable. 6. In this application, we are not considering the question of correctness of the conviction of both the accused for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Since till date, the accused have not filed any appeal against their conviction, we are not touching the said question at all. The only question which is being considered is as to whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-State and going through the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has committed no illegality while acquitting both the respondents for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, as in our opinion, except the evidence of extra judicial confession, allegedly made by one of the accused before PW.6 Diwan Singh, Sarpanch of the parental village of the deceased, which has been found to be unreliable, there is no other evidence, on the basis of which both the accused could have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In this case, dead body of Meena was found in the Crl. Misc. No. A-1093-M of 2010 -4field near the main road. No presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1887 could have been raised against the husband of the deceased. In this case, dead body of Meena was found in the Crl. Misc. No. A-1093-M of 2010 -4field near the main road. No presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1887 could have been raised against the husband of the deceased. As far as the first accused (husband of the deceased) is concerned, even no extra judicial confession was made by him. The alleged extra judicial confession of his co-accused has been found to be not reliable. Thus, in view of this evidence, the view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or an impossible view, which may require interference by this court. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. Thus, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. 8. Dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that any thing observed in this order, shall not effect the appeal, if filed by the respondents against their conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.