AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the
State of Rajasthan under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of Cr.P.C . against
the judgment dated 23rd of July, 2016 passed by learned Special
Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar (Trial
Court) in Session Case No.61/2014 (419/2014), whereby the
learned trial court acquitted the respondent- Amrik Singh from the
charges levelled against him under Section 499 and 302 of IPC.
The complainant- Ashok Kumar has also filed separate
appeal being D.B. Cri. Appeal No.5/2017 challenging the judgment
impugned.
Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 1. 0.04.2014 at about 02.30 PM, complainant- Ashok Kumar filed a
written report before the S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, Sri
Ganganagar at Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar to the effect that
he along with his wife resides at Lalchand-Ki-Dhani and they were
not having any child. As per contents of the report, his friend
Amrik Singh (respondent herein) frequently visiting to his house
and some time he was residing with them and he was doing
labour work and also doing the work of driver on tractor.
In the report it was further stated that a day before the
occurrence, Amrik Singh stayed in his house and on the next day
morning at 7''O Clock he (Amrik Singh) upon his work place and
complainant also left the house. As per complainant''s contention,
he worked along with Mistry Baljit Singh and came back in the
evening at 07.30 PM. The complainant reached to his house and
found his room locked and upon enquiry from the children of
neighbour, they informed that they are not aware about his wife.
In the evening at 9''O Clock, Amrik Singh (respondent) came to
the house and put a question where is your wife, then complainant
replied that probably she went out from the house, then Amrik
Singh asked complainant to break open the lock. The complainant
and Amrik Singh both broke open the lock and saw that
Kaushalya, wife of complainant, was lying dead and one turban
was found upon her neck and she was unconscious. The deceased,
Kaushalya was immediately taken to hospital by the complainant
and Amrik Singh, where she was declared dead by the doctors.
On this report, FIR No.179/2014 was registered against
unknown person but after investigation on the basis of
circumstantial evidence of recovery and extra judicial confession,
the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, filed a charge sheet against
respondent Armik Singh for offences under Sections 450 and 302
of IPC.
The learned trial court after providing of hearing to
respondent, framed charge against him for offence u/s 499 & 302
IPC, which he denied and claimed for trial.
During trial, to prove the case the prosecution examined 13
witnesses and exhibited 44 documents. Thereafter the trial court
recorded the statements of respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
in which he denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution
witnesses, and no evidence was produced by him in defence.
The learned trial court after recording the evidence finally
heard arguments and acquitted the accused respondent from the
charges levelled against him vide judgment impugned dated
23.07.2016 passed in Session Case No.61/2014 (419/2014),
against which leave has been sought by the State.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently argued that the trial court has committed
serious error in disbelieving the recovery and extra judicial
confession, therefore, it is a case in which the trial court ought to
have convicted the respondent on the basis of circumstantial
evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case.
Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that merely on the
basis of conjectures and surmises the learned trial court gave
erroneous finding of acquittal, therefore, the impugned judgment
deserves to be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant further argued that on the basis of statement of Dr.
B.M. Sharma and Dr. Prem Arora, it cannot be said that death was
caused due to strangulation but this finding is totally erroneous
because the trial court has not considered entire evidence in right
prospects and in accordance with law. Therefore, the judgment
impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and leave may be
granted.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent submits that prosecution has failed proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt and to convict the person on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, whereas it is the duty of the prosecution
to prove its case beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. He thus
argued that it is not a fit case to disturb the finding of trial court
so as to grant leave against the judgment impugned.
We have perused the finding of learned trial court with
respect to extra judicial confession. The learned trial court
considered the statements of PW.4-Ashok Kumar, PW.3- Vinod
Kumar, PW.2- Kalu @ Kalia and PW.1- Chamkaur Singh and gave
finding that prosecution has failed to prove the extra judicial
confession of the accused respondent.
We have also perused the statements of all these witnesses.
PW.4- Ashok Kumar (complainant) stated in his statement that,
"incident was not seen by him, but I was informed by Chamkaur
Singh that Amrik Singh has murdered my wife, therefore, he is
liable to be punished."
PW.2- Kalu @ Kaliya stated that Amrik Singh made extra
judicial confession before Chamkaur Singh, I was standing near
Chamkaur Singh and in the cross examination, he said that, "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Similarly, PW.-1 Chamkaur Singh, who is sole witness of
extra judicial confession, has turned hostile and did not support
the prosecution case.
In our opinion when the sole witness of extra judicial
confession PW.1- Chamkaur Singh turned hostile, then there is no
error in the finding given by the trial court so as to disbelieve the
fact of extra judicial confession.
We have also perused the statement of complainant- Ashok
Kumar, in which he has categorically said that, "Amrik Singh is my
friend and residing with me, on the date of incident was very
much with him and came back in the evening at 9''O Clock from
his work place, at that time, there was lock upon the room and
Amrik Singh made enquiry about my wife."
The learned trial court after considering the fact that
respondent was very much present in the house on the date of
incident and residing with the complainant and his wife, there was
no quarrel in between them and the FIR was filed by complainant,
Ashok Kumar against unknown person without any allegation
against Amrik Singh, but improved his statement to involve the
respondent with the alleged crime.
Upon assessment of entire evidence, we are of the opinion
that it is not a fit case to grave to appeal against the judgment
because the case is based upon circumstantial evidence and
prosecution has failed to prove the fact of extra judicial confession
and recovery of articles and motive/conduct of the respondent.
Upon our assessment, it is obvious that in the case based upon
circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt, that too there should be
complete chain of circumstantial evidence, but here in this case,
the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of extra judicial confession,
recovery and motive, therefore, no case is made out for granting
leave to appeal against the judgment impugned, hence, the
criminal leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.
In view of dismissal of criminal leave to appeal, the criminal
appeal filed by the complainant- Ashok Kumar, is also hereby
dismissed.