- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. For the reasons mentioned in the application, we condone delay in filing application for grant of special leave to appeal. The complainant seeks leave to appeal against order of acquittal of the respondents of the offences under Section 302/34 IPC.
(2.) THE complainant Tarsem Pal is brother of deceased Amarbir @ Mana, who was a student of 9th class and was found dead on 22.2.1997. Initially, on the statement of father of the complainant Puran Chand (PW -2), Ex.DA, FIR was registered, but after investigation, the investigating agency held the case to be of suicide and did not sent up the accused for trial. During investigation, statement of the present complainant Tarsem Pal, Ex.DC, was recorded on 22.2.1997. Tarsem Pal (PW -3) and Puran Chand (PW 2), both had given different version of death having been caused by strangulation by a Parna (a piece of cloth), but later when it was found that the death was not as a result of strangulation but as a result of consumption of poison, a new version was put forward. The trial Court found the new improved version to be unreliable. It was, inter -alia, observed that Tarsem Pal, PW -3, would not have given a different version earlier if he had been an eyewitness as claimed by him and since there was no reliable evidence, the trial Court held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It will be worthwhile to extract relevant observations of the trial Court: ...In the present case as per Ex.DA and Ex.DC deceased was murdered by strangulating with Parna but as per complaint and statement of the eye witness deceased was murdered by administering some poisonous substance mixed in a liquor. Occurrence had taken place on 22.2.97 at 3.00 P.M. Post mortem examination was conducted on 23.2.97 by the Board. Probable duration between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. On cross - examination, Dr. Jatinder Kumar stated that he cannot tell the time between consuming poison and death. No mark of scuffle, abrasion and contusion was noted. There was no finger mark on the neck. If as per Ex.DA and Ex.DC deceased was murdered by strangulating with a parna then mark of scuffle or finger marks were expected to be on the neck. If murder was by administering some poisonous substance even then finger marks or marks of scuffle were expected to be noted by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination because poisonous substance in a liquor cannot be administered easily. Deceased was young. If poisonous substance is to be administered forcibly the deceased was expected to resist while administering poisonous substance. Mark of scuffle, finger marks were expected to be noted. Absence of mark of scuffle, abrasion, contusion or finger marks suggests that story seems to be doubtful.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the complainant has not been able to show that the reasons given by the trial Court for not accepting the version of the complainant are unreasonable or perverse. Thus, no compelling and substantial reasons have been shown for interference with the acquittal, as required, in view law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana : AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal v. State of Haryana . Accordingly, we dismiss the application for grant of leave to appeal.;