Raj Pal Singh vs Amritpal Kaur and Others

Lisa Gill, J.—Applicant/appellant prays for leave to appeal against judgment dated 31.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby all the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307/328/148/149/201/120B IPC against them.

Applicant/appellant Raj Pal Singh preferred a complaint dated 16.09.2006 against respondents No. 1 to 6 as well as one Virsa Singh (since deceased). As per averments in the complaint, martyrdom day of Shri Guru Arjun Dev, the Fifth Guru of the Sikhs was celebrated at Gurdwara Sahib of village Bhure Kalan on 16.06.2006. Karah Prashad (sweet distributed amongst devotees) was distributed amongst the devotees present there. Jasbir Singh son of Resham Singh, complainant''s uncle (Chacha) was also present there alongwith his entire family i.e., his wife Amarjit Kaur who was a sitting Sarpanch of the village, their two sons Kulwant Singh and Beant Singh and their married daughter Veerpal Kaur. His uncle''s three maternal grand daughters and maternal grand son were also present at the Gurdwara Sahib. Jasbir Singh as well as the abovementioned relatives were distributed Karah Prashad alongwith other devotees at about 11.00 a.m. All of them collected Prashad in a plate and placed the same in a hall of the Gurdwara Sahib. All the abovementioned persons alongwith other devotees went outside the hall for imbibing Langar (meal distributed among devotees) in a vacant place within the Gurudwara Sahib premises itself.

Plate containing Prashad was left in the hall of the Gurdwara alongwith other plates containing Prashad left by various devotees. After partaking Langar, Jasbir Singh alongwith his family members retrieved their plates of Prashad from the hall and headed home. Complainant''s house being on the way, the complainant''s uncle and his family decided to stop and meet him. They reached the complainant''s house at about 12.00 noon. Complainant took them on a tractor to proceed to their residence.

On reaching their residence, Veer Pal Kaur distributed Prashad kept in the plate which was brought from the Gurdwara Sahib. It was distributed amongst complainant and other family members of Jasbir Singh. Pursuant to eating the said Prashad, complainant and other persons felt unwell. Jasbir Singh called Gurinder Pal Singh, complainant''s elder brother from his residence and apprised him of the situation. Gurinder Pal Singh, complainant''s elder brother took the complainant to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur where the complainant was induced to vomit.

PW3 Gurinder Pal Singh revealed that he had seen respondent No. 1 Amritpal Kaur daughter of Baldev Singh meddling and tampering with the plate containing Prashad left in the hall of the Gurdwara Sahib. However, he had no idea that such a heinous act would be committed by her. Due to the condition of complainant being serious, he was shifted to Mission Hospital, Ferozepur where the complainant fell unconscious and remained admitted from 16.06.2006 to 21.06.2006. He was not fit to make a statement during this period. Jasbir Singh and his wife alongwith other members of his family were also brought to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and were treated there.

When complainant Raj Pal Singh was discharged from the hospital, and arrived at his village, it was revealed to him by P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh son of Resham Singh that he saw respondent No. 1 Amritpal Kaur having consultation and due deliberation with the other accused outside Gurudwara Sahib on 16.06.2006 stating that on finding a suitable occasion Jasbir Singh and members of his family would be eliminated. When Chhinder Pal Singh came out after having Langar, respondents No. 2 to 5 alongwith Virsa Singh (deceased) were standing with respondent No. 1 in a corner and talking to each other. Accused No. 1 was saying that as per their direction, stipulated work had been done and the result would come shortly.

It is further averred in the complaint that respondent No. 1 Amritpal Kaur mixed poison in the said Prashad for eliminating Jasbir Singh and his family members. Five years ago Amritpal Kaur had mixed/administered poison for eliminating the family of Darshan Singh who is the son of elder brother of Jasbir Singh''s father. Said matter had however been compromised. Respondent No. 1 Amritpal Kaur had confessed to her guilt and sought pardon.

Motive behind the commission of offence was that Amarjit Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh is Sarpanch of the village. Gram Panchayat had filed a case before the DDPO, Ferozepur for obtaining possession of the Panchayat land which was in unauthorized possession of the respondents-accused. It is further submitted in the complaint that accused respondents were influential persons due to which no action was taken by the police. SI Surjit Singh did not take any action for sending the Prashad or vomit etc. for chemical examination. Accused respondents allegedly connived with the doctors of Mission Hospital due to which they never retained any sample of vomit or stomach wash.

Allegations were raised against respondent No. 6 - SI Surjit Singh to the effect that he had procured signatures of the complainant on 17.06.2006 when he was unconscious. He fabricated a fake certificate issued by the doctor stating the complainant to be fit to make a statement. Police of Police Station Mamdot did not take appropriate action in this matter. Matter was inquired into by DSP (H) on the intervention of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur and FIR No. 122 dated 08.08.2006 was registered under Section 307 IPC but due to influence of the respondents, a cancellation report was prepared. On the said averments action was prayed for, in accordance with law.

On the basis of preliminary evidence, all the accused persons were summoned vide order dated 18.08.2011 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 328/307/148/149/201/120B IPC.

Complainant examined ten witnesses to prove his case. All the accused while denying the incriminating evidence put to them pleaded innocence and false implication in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, no evidence was led in defence.

Learned trial court on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case concluded that allegations against the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt thereby, acquitted them of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved therefrom, complainant seeks leave to appeal against the said decision.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges against them in the light of specific, cogent and clear evidence on record against them. It is argued that medical evidence on record proves that complainant remained admitted in the hospital from 16.06.2006 to 21.06.2006 on account of poisoning. Witnesses, P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh and complainant''s brother PW3 Gurinder Pal Singh had seen respondent No. 1 Amritpal Kaur tampering with the plate containing Karah Prashad. Furthermore, all the accused were seen conversing each other. Therefore, it is clear that all the respondents are guilty of the offences as charged. Much reliance is placed on the statement of P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh. It is submitted that earlier also Amritpal Kaur had tried to poison the family of Darshan Singh. It is thus, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and all the respondents be convicted for the offences as charged and be punished accordingly.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and gone through the record produced in Court. On a perusal of the record and the attending facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the findings returned by the learned trial court.

It is a matter of record that the entire case of the complainant rests on his own oral testimony as well as that of P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh, PW3 Gurinder Pal Singh, PW4 Beant Singh, PW6 Jasbir Singh, PW7 Amarjit Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh, PW8 Veerpal Kaur and PW9 Kulwant Singh son of Jasbir Singh. Much stress is laid on the statement of P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh to say that commission of offence by all the accused is proved.

PW1 Chhinder Pal Singh reveals that on 16.06.2006 respondent No. 1 - Amritpal Kaur alongwith other respondents were standing in a corner outside the Gurdwara and were having a discussion to eliminate Jasbir Singh and members of his family on finding a suitable opportunity. It is further stated that after having his Langar, P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh again saw Amritpal Kaur and other accused together. He overheard her saying that she had done the needful as per their wishes and the result would be seen in a little while. P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh informed about this fact to the complainant on 21.06.2006 when he was discharged. This witness has admitted that from the date of alleged occurrence i.e., 16.06.2006 till his testimony before the court, he had never informed any authority nor send any written intimation nor revealed this fact before the Panchayat. He states that though there was a gap of 1-1 1/2 hours in the incident mentioned in his statement, he neither informed anybody about the incident nor made an effort to prevent the occurrence by warning the concerned persons.

PW3 Gurinder Pal Singh has stated that he saw Amritpal Kaur doing something with the plate of Karah Prashad of Jasbir Singh''s family. The other witnesses have testified in terms of the complaint submitted by Raj Pal Singh. However, not one of them gives any detail of what she was doing.

PW5 Dr. David Masih from the Frances Newton Hospital, Ferozepur has stated that complainant Raj Pal Singh was admitted in the hospital on 16.06.2006 "for the alleged poisoning" in the devotional offering (Parshad) consumed by Raj Pal Singh. He remained admitted in the hospital till 21.06.2006. Sample of vomit was handed over to ASI Nirmal Singh on 23.06.2006. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the complainant was fit to make the statement on 17.06.2006. Request was made for recording the statement of complainant by SI Surjit Singh. He had no knowledge whether the sample was sent for chemical examination for analysis.

PW10 Navtej Singh, retired DSP deposed that he recorded the statement, Ex. P.W. 10/D of the complainant as well as statements of other persons. He conducted an inquiry and submitted report, Ex. P.W. 10/M dated 27.06.2006. On the direction of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, FIR No. 122 dated 08.08.2006 was registered under Section 307 IPC. He further deposed that a show-cause notice was issued to SI Surjit Singh and an inquiry was conducted by him against SI Surjit Singh. Opposite party was also joined in the inquiry. He recommended for initiating appropriate departmental proceedings against SI Surjit Singh for his acts of commission and omission while investigating the matter in question. P.W. 10 Navtej Singh however admitted that he never collected any medical evidence. He did not record the statement of any doctor. He admits that inquiry marked to him was the first inquiry prior to the registration of the FIR.

It is a matter of record that there is no evidence on record to show that the plate in question had any specific markings thereon to establish that it belonged to Jasbir Singh and his family. Admittedly, this plate was kept alongwith a number of other plates in the hall of Gurdwara. There is nothing on record to show that this plate was easily identifiable by accused Amritpal Kaur.

Furthermore, there is not an iota of evidence to show that Amritpal Kaur mixed any poison in the said Prashad. Even as per the oral testimony of P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh and PW3 Gurinder Pal Singh it is only stated that Amritpal Kaur was seen tampering with the plate. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W. 1 Chhinder Pal Singh and PW3 Gurinder Pal Singh to say that respondent No. 1 - Amritpal Kaur, in fact, administered poison in the said food article. In respect of the alleged conversation overheard by PW3 Chhinder Pal Singh, it can again not be assumed or presumed that there was a conspiracy to eliminate Jasbir Singh and members of his family by administering poison in Prashad.

Similarly, there is no evidence on record to prove that respondent No. 1 - Amritpal Kaur had earlier administered poison in the hand pump owned by Darshan Singh, a cousin of Jasbir Singh.

Another extremely relevant fact is that there is no evidence on record to show that there was any specific poisonous substance in the Prashad. It is a matter of record that the left over Prashad was not sent for chemical examination neither vomit or stomach wash of the complainant or of any other alleged victims was subjected to chemical examination. To say that it is the default of the investigating agency therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused and conviction can be based upon this presumption, is not justified or correct.

It is further to be noted that FIR No. 122 dated 08.08.2006 Ex. C12 was registered only against respondent No. 1 - Amritpal Kaur. Application Ex. DX was also against her. Matter was inquired into and ultimately cancellation report was filed as the matter was found to be that of simple food poisoning.

It is a settled position of law that suspicion however strong can never take the place of proof. In criminal proceedings, it is incumbent upon the prosecution/complainant to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot be based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion however strong it may be. In the present case, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to justify conviction of the accused persons. An attempt has doubtlessly been made to suggest that there were strained relations between the accused and the family of Jasbir Singh whose wife is Sarpanch of the village. Gram Panchayat had taken action for eviction of the accused persons from the Panchayat land. However, there is no documentary evidence on record to this effect and furthermore factum of strained relations is not sufficient to convict the said respondents.

No other point has been urged.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is unable to point out any substantial, strong or compelling reasons which would warrant interference in the impugned judgment. Acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside simply because another view may be possible. There is no perversity, infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur

Consequently, leave to appeal is declined.