Asha Rani vs The State of Punjab and Others

A.N. Jindal. J.—All the five accused - Respondents No. 2 to 6 (herein referred as ''the accused'') were tried for committing the murder of Mukhtiar Singh on 9.4.2008 at 10.00 PM, as a sequel of which they were tried and acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.10.2010, against which this petition has been filed.

On 9.4.2008, at about 10.00 PM, when complainant Asha Rani (herein referred as ''the complainant'') was present in her room, then she over-heard hue and cry. At this, she opened the door, upon which she saw in the light of the room of Mukhtiar Singh that the accused Darshan Singh and his son alias Chhipoo, Jamna Bai, her husband Piara Singh and their son Desa Singh were present there. They had gagged the mouth of Mukhtiar Singh and had also caught hold of his arms. Accused Darshan Singh had caught hold the legs of Mukhtiar Singh and they all put him forcibly on a cot. Accused Jamna Bai forcibly administered some poisonous substance into his mouth and then all of them fled away. Balkar Singh, husband of the complainant had also witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, they went to his room and took him to Anil Baghi Hospital, Ferozepur, where he died. A DDR was lodged in the police station, but the Investigating Agency having failed to collect adequate evidence against the accused, did not register the case. Hence, after two months, the complaint was filed.

On commitment, the accused persons were charged. However, on trial, they were acquitted.

Having heard the contentions of the counsel for the Petitioner, the same are not found convincing. It does not appeal to the reason that the accused knowing fully well that other family members of the deceased were residing with him, and could come to his rescue, would dare to go into the house to administer him the poison forcibly. As a matter of fact, the parties were already litigating over the dispute regarding a passage, from where the alleged accusations emanated.

That apart, there is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The occurrence had taken place on 9.4.2008, whereas, the complaint was filed on 10.6.2008. The police after enquiry had found the accusations to be false. There are serious discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant says that clothes of Mukhtiar Singh were torn, whereas, the concerned doctor, who conducted the autopsy says that the clothes were intact. However, Balkar Singh (P.W. 2) during his cross-examination states that the clothes of the deceased were torn.

The allegations leveled by the complainant (P.W. 1) are that accused Darshan Singh and Surjit Singh had caught hold of the deceased Mukhtiar Singh from his legs and arms, then in the said scuffle, he must have suffered injuries much less scratches, but the medical evidence does not disclose these facts. Even the copy of the post mortem report (Ex.P-1) also does not indicate about any such injury on the body of the deceased.

Only perversity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal could entail interference by this Court, but having observed no such defect, we hasten to interfere in the impugned judgment.

Dismissed.