Balkar Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for condonation of delay of 813 days (about 2 years, 2 months & 23 days) in filing the petition u/s 378(4) Cr.PC and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of complaint of complainant Arjun Singh (PW9), a criminal case was registered against the private respondent Nos.2 & 3 (accused), by means of FIR No. 182 dated 10.7.2006, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 306 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Butana, District Karnal. The trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused from the indicated charge, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.9.2009, which, in substance, is as under (paras No. 34 & 35):

No doubt the improvements in statements of PW-9 Arjun Singh and PW11 Rano Devi cannot be taken into consideration which are beyond their statement already made before the police. In this statement before the CRM No. 71523 of 2011 in CRM No. 1049-MA of 2011 (O&M) -2 police, PW-9 Arjun Singh complainant has not uttered even a single word to the effect that the accused persons gave beating to his son Balwinder Singh. He has simply stated in his statement Ex.P24 that some altercation took place between Balwinder Singh and his in laws. Thus, certainly PW-9 has exaggerated the allegations to make them more serious. He has also not stated in his statement Ex.P24 that the accused also gave slaps to his daughter Rano and beat her up but he has improved his version by stating the said words while appearing as PW-9 in the witness box. Thus, the mere exchange of hot words or altercation between deceased Balwinder Singh and his in laws i.e. Father-in-law and Mother-in-law, brother-in-law, maternal uncle of his wife etc. two days before his death cannot be said to have caused abetment to commit suicide. There is absolutely no evidence on file to prove that the accused persons and deceased Balwinder Singh met with each after 30.4.2006. Thus, there is nothing to infer that the accused persons instigated the deceased to commit suicide or were responsible for the suicide. Reliance on this point can be placed on the Authority of Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case titled as Nasib Singh and others Versus State of Punjab 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 285.

Taking the totality of materials on record and the facts and the circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to an irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone and none else responsible for his death and the case of the prosecution is replete with infirmities, discrepancies, inconsistencies and improbabilities. Therefore, the conviction of the accused persons cannot be based on such infirm and shake evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As such, the prosecution story is not a clear pointer towards the guilt of the accused persons. Consequently, they are acquitted of the charge u/s 306/34 of Indian Penal Code framed against them. The accused are on bail. Their bail/surety bonds shall stand discharged.

The State of Haryana did not challenge the judgment of acquittal and on the contrary, Balkar Singh, son of complainant Arjun Singh preferred the present petition for special leave to appeal, invoking the provisions of Section 378 (4) Cr.PC alongwith a petition for condonation of delay of 813 days in filing the same, inter-alia pleading that in the month of January, 2010, he approached the District Attorney, Karnal for getting the information, with regard to filing of the State appeal. He assured him to ascertain the status. Ultimately, he approached the office of Advocate General on 29.9.2011, then, his counsel informed that no appeal has been filed by the State. In this manner, the delay of 813 days in filing the appeal has occurred. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner-appellant sought to condone the delay in the manner depicted here-in-above.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

As is evident from the record, that having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the infirmities, discrepancies & improbabilities in the prosecution version, the trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused from the indicated charge, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.9.2009, whereas the petitioner-appellant filed present petition on 14.12.2011. The only explanation put forth by him that he came to know from the office of Advocate General that the appeal was not filed, then, he filed the petition for special leave to appeal, appears to be highly improbable and after thought. It is now well settled proposition of law that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to explain each day''s delay. Meaning thereby, he has miserably failed to explain each day''s delay of 813 days in filing the petition for special leave to appeal. Therefore, no ground, muchless cogent, for condonation of inordinate and unexplained delay of 813 days is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the petition for special leave to appeal is, hereby dismissed as such.