The State of Punjab vs Kuldip Singh and Another

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC.

Case of the prosecution is that on 24.06.1992 at 10.30 P.M., accused Kuldip Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur put kerosene on Harvinder Kaur wife of Kuldip Singh and put her on fire. PW-1 Sewa Singh and PW-2 Balwinder Kaur, who happened to be outside the house of the deceased, heard the shrieks and went inside the house after scaling the wall. They found that the deceased had already died. The accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Other people also gathered there. Sewa Singh and Balwinder Kaur thought it proper to lodge a report with the police. They went to Police Post D.C.W., Patiala attached with Police Station Sadar Patiala, where statement of Sewa Singh (Ex.PA) was recorded by SI Harbhajan Singh (PW-7) on 24.6.1992 at 1.20 P.M. Sewa Singh also stated that Kuldip Singh was a tenant in the house of Sukhwinder Kaur and had illicit relations with her. After the marriage with the deceased Harvinder Kaur, Harvinder Kaur objected to the relationship and she left the house of Kuldip Singh. About 15 days prior to the occurrence, she joined the company of her husband. The accused in a conspiracy caused the murder of Harvinder Kaur.

SI Harbhajan Singh (PW-7) went to the place of occurrence at 1.30 P.M., got the photographs taken, recovered can of kerosene oil and other items, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, he arrested the accused. Part of investigation was conducted by ASI Ajmer Singh (PW-8). Dr. Deepak Walia (PW-3) conducted post-mortem examination on 24.6.1992 at 4.00 P.M. and found 100% burns which were the cause of death.

After completing investigation, the accused were challaned.

The prosecution examined Sewa Singh PW-1, Balwinder Kaur PW-2, Dr. Deepak Walia PW-3, Sunder Lal @ Narinder Kumar PW-6, SI Harbhajan Singh PW-7 and ASI Ajmer Singh PW-8. The prosecution also produced MHC Bhupinder Singh PW-4, who gave his statement on affidavit Ex.PW-4/A, PW-5 Constable Prem Singh, who also gave his statement on affidavit Ex.PW-5/A, PW-9 Constable Chet Ram, who submitted his statement on affidavit Ex.PW-9/A.

The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Kuldip Singh stated that the deceased died on account of accidental burning as a result of bursting of pressure stove while preparing tea. He also suffered extensive burns in an attempt to save her life and remained admitted in the hospital for about 5 months. He had a child of 21/2 years of age at the time of occurrence. His brother was in army. He was medically examined under the orders of the Court and injuries on him were found to be dangerous to life. The witnesses were inimical to him. Gian Singh husband of Balwinder Kaur-PW-2 had litigation with co-accused Sukhwinder Kaur. He was an attesting witness to an agreement to sell between Jagtar Singh, nephew of Gian Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur. Sewa Singh (PW-1) was a friend of Gian Singh. Accused Sukhwinder Kaur stated that she had four children of the age ranging from 14 to 20 years. She did not have any house to give on rent. Sewa Singh (PW-1) and Balwinder Kaur (PW-2) were inimical to her on account of pending litigation.

Eleven witness were examined in defence being Dr. Lavinder Mann DW-1, Dr. Curdit Singh DW-2, Smt. Harminder Kaur, Clerk DW-3, HC Jarnail Singh DW-4, C. Raghuvinderpal Singh DW-5, Harpartap Singh Bajwa DW-6, Madan Gopal DW-7, HC Balwant Singh DW-8 C. Kulwinder Singh DW-9, Dr. Gurpartap Singh DW-10 and Dr. Raghbir Singh DW-11.

After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons given by the trial Court can be summed up as under:

(i) PW-1 Sewa Singh was not a reliable witness. There were major contradictions in his version given to the police (Ex.PA) and his evidence before the Court. His version was also contradicted by medical evidence that the deceased was having pregnancy of three months at the time of her death. He was a chance witness and his house was not close by to the place of occurrence;

(ii) PW-2 Balwinder Kaur was also not a reliable witness. She admitted about the litigation with Sukhwinder Kaur, accused. She denied knowledge about several proceedings pending between the accused and her husband i.e. husband of Balwinder Kaur;

(iii) Extra-judicial confession made by Sukhwinder Kaur before Narinder Kumar (PW-6) on 28.06.1992 was not reliable;

It was observed that the defence version was reliable and the evidence led by the defence made the same to be probable.

DW-1 Dr. Lavinder Singh Mann deposed that he examined Kuldip singh on 31.7.1992 under the orders of CJM, Patiala and found healing burn scars on upper limbs, thighs, legs and feet. The burns were 50% of duration of 5-6 weeks. The patient would have died but for the treatment. DW-2 Dr. Gurdit Singh produced bed head ticket of the accused Kuldip, who was admitted in the hospital on 24.6.1992. DW-3 Harminder Kaur, Senior Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner proved about the agreement to sell between the nephew of Balwinder Kaur, accused and her husband and complaint made by Sukhwinder Kaur. DW-5 C. Raghuvinderpal Singh produced the application moved by Sukhwinder Kaur against Gian Singh etc.

DW-6 Harpartap Singh Bajwa was examined to show that Kuldip Singh, accused had made the deceased his nominee in provident fund. DW-7 Madan Gopal proved a copy of roznamcha showing the complaint by Sukhwinder Kaur, accused against Gian Singh husband of Balwinder Kaur, PW. HC Balwinder Singh, DW-8 proved the entry of the complaint made by Sukhwinder Kaur against Gian Singh. DW-9 C. Kulwant Singh also deposed about the complaint of Sukhwinder Kaur against Gian Singh. DW-10 Dr. Gurpartap Singh proved the treatment given to the accused Kuldip Singh. DW-11 Dr. Raghbir Singh recorded the history of Kuldip Singh in the bed head ticket. The relations of the deceased were not examined to prove any illicit relation of the accused, as alleged.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It has been established by medical evidence that Kuldip Singh, accused received 50% burns of first and second degree and would also have died if not treated. No relative of the deceased was examined and PW-1 Sewa Singh and PW-2 Balwinder Kaur were inimical to the accused Kuldip Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur. Litigation was pending between the parties prior to the occurrence about the property. In these circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court of not relying upon the testimony of PW-1 Sewa Singh and PW-2 Balwinder Kaur, who claimed to be the eyewitnesses and also in holding the defence version to be probable, is certainly a possible view, which cannot be held to be perverse. Interference with the order of acquittal is not called for merely on the ground that two views may be possible on appreciation of evidence.

Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:

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 and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, . The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, :

"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.

In these circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the acquittal of the respondents. The appeal is dismissed.