Bhoop Singh vs Anil Kumar

R.P. Nagrath, J.—Instant revision has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.04.2008 in FIR No. 219 dated 05.10.2005 for offences under Sections 302/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Model Town, Rewari.

On 05.10.2005 at about 08.00 a.m. Kailash (deceased) the son of complainant was ploughing the fields with tractor belonging to Satbir. Two youths came there and called the son of complainant on some pretext. The miscreants shot at the deceased with firearms and fled from there. The complainant reached the spot on hearing the gun shots and found his son lying dead on the pathway in a pool of blood. Satbir aforesaid also fled being scared. First Information Report (FIR) was registered on the complaint of the petitioner herein who is father of the deceased.

SI Ram Avtar of Special Cell, Delhi Police arrested respondent-accused No. 1 and 2 in FIR No. 681 dated 05.05.2006 under Sections 186, 353, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. During interrogation of these accused-respondents they made disclosure statements about committing this crime at the instance of Sajjan Singh-respondent No. 3. They were thus arrested in the instant FIR by obtaining their production warrants. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was business rivalry between the family of deceased and respondent No. 3-Sajjan Singh. The version of prosecution was that on 04.10.2005, respondents No. 1 and 2 had stayed in Hotel Golden Hut arranged by respondent No. 3.

On 27.09.2006, respondent No. 2-Ravinder Kumar was interrogated by the police party headed by PW-20 Sadhu Ram Inspector in which PW-8 Head Constable Mangtu Ram was a member. Pursuant to the disclosure statement Ravinder Singh-respondent No. 2, got recovered.32 bore pistol in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The trial Court framed the charges against respondents u/s 302/120B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Prosecution examined 23 witnesses in support of its case. Respondents were thereafter examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court acquitted the respondents on 23.04.2008, finding that the charges against them were not proved beyond suspicion.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the judgment of trial Court, I find nothing to suggest that the trial Court findings are perverse or in ignorance of any material before it.

The primary evidence on which the prosecution wanted to rely was recovery of a weapon from respondent No. 2. The weapon was in fact recovered from respondent No. 2 after about one year of the incident. It is not disputed that the prosecution was unable to connect the recovery of weapon with this incident.

The prosecution cited one PW-11 Satbir as an eyewitness but that witness did not support the prosecution story. He turned hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the State counsel but nothing was elicited from his mouth to bring any incriminating circumstance against the respondents. Most of the remaining witnesses in the case except for PW-16 the complainant-petitioner are formal.

The disclosure statement in the nature of confession of the crime allegedly made by respondents No. 1 and 2 would be inadmissible in evidence. Even the evidence of PW-17 HC Suresh Kumar and PW-18 ASI Daya Nand to the effect that Anil Kumar and Ravinder Singh respondents No. 1 and 2 allegedly demarcated the place of occurrence would be inadmissible.

The other important evidence could be the statement of PW-14 Laxman Singh, Assistant Manager, Golden Hut, Khijuri. PW-14 stated from the record that one Manjeet Singh stayed alongwith other persons in the hotel from 02.10.2005 to 05.10.2005. PW-14 Laxman Singh, however, categorically stated that the respondents facing trial never stayed in the hotel during those days.

The prosecution also collected evidence of the extrajudicial confession made before one Jaswant but the said witness was not examined being won over.

The prosecution was then left with the testimony of complainant-petitioner himself as PW-16. He stated that the assailants are present in the Court. The trial Court, however, observed as under:-

In the cross-examination, he has admitted that accused Anil and Ravinder were previously not known to him. He had not given any physical data of the accused in his compliant Ex. PB. He had come to know that the accused had been arrested at Delhi. Thereafter, he had been visiting to the police to enquire about the development of the case. After the arrest of the accused, he had met the police for 3 or 4 times. He had visited the Court 3/4 times prior to the date of his statement and during these dates, he had not seen the accused in the Court. The learned defence counsel argued that three accused were present at the time of the statement of PW-16 Bhup Singh and he has not been able to identify exactly two persons, who had come to his fields. He has not particularly identified accused Ravinder and Anil. He has simply stated that two accused are present in the Court. It is an admitted fact that he had not given the description of the accused while lodging the report to the police. He has been visiting the police station at Delhi as well as the Court during the trial and he must have seen the accused during this process...... xx........ xx...... xx........ xx. He had further admitted that there were about 40/50 ladies also. The gun shot was fired from the point blank range. When he reached the spot, the accused had already disappeared towards the canal. No body had tried to chase the accused. He could not tell about the detail of the clothings worn by the accused.

By appreciating the evidence meticulously the trial Court came to a firm finding that there is absolutely no evidence even for suggesting that Sajjan Singh respondent No. 3 instigated respondents No. 1 and 2 to commit the crime. The trial Court has properly analyzed the evidence to come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner is not proved beyond suspicion. In the absence of evidence which the trial Court may have ignored, there is no scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant revision and the same is dismissed.