1. This case relates to the death of a lady by name Narinder Kaur. It was found to be a case of murder by strangulation. Her husband, the respondent, was indicted for the murder of the deceased. The trial Court acquitted him. The brother of the deceased moved the High Court in revision as the State did not bother to file any appeal against the acquittal. But the revision was disposed of by the High Court through cryptic order "No ground to interfere. Dismissed." The aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
2. The prosecution case is that deceased Narinder Kaur and respondent-accused were married together somewhere in 1985-86 and the married life was not happy as skirmishes erupted frequently as between them. She was taken back to her natal home, and after a reconciliation settled at by the intervention of some well meaning relatives, she was brought back to the nuptial home sometime during February, 1988. On 20-2-1988 she was decoyed by her husband to a village called Khabra, and there she was strangulated to death and the dead body was abandoned in a sugarcane grove and the husband escaped therefrom.
3. The case against the husband sprang up on the lodgment of an FIR made by the present appellant on 24th February, 1988. During the investigation the police arrested the respondent on the next day. He told the police of the place where the dead body was abandoned. PW-10 was led by him to the sugarcane field wherefrom the putrefied dead body was recovered. Exhibit P.G. is the recovery memo drawn up thereat. Respondent was sent up for trial after completing the investigation and the trial ended in his acquittal as mentioned above.
4. The following circumstances were arrayed by the prosecution to bring the guilt of the respondent home.
(1) That Narinder Kaur and respondent were living together in his house after a reconciliation was struck at the intervention of their relatives.
(2) Both of them were found riding on a bicycle on 20-2-1988 near the village Moila and accused told PW-4 that they were proceeding to Akal Garh Gurudwara (which is said to be about 1 kilometre from that place where PW-4 saw the spouses.) (3) Thereafter nobody had seen the deceased alive.
(4) On 25-2-1988 respondent disclosed to PW-10 that the dead body of Narinder Kaur could be pointed out by him. Pursuant to the said statement police party was led by the accused to village Khabra and respondent pointed out the dead body of Narinder Kaur lying inside a sugarcane grove.
5. The post-mortem examination conducted on 25-2-1988 revealed that death of Narinder Kaur would have occurred within five days prior to the autopsy.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has totally skipped the evidence of PW-10 to whom respondent had made the disclosure statement which led to the recovery of the dead body and that the trial Court has cleanly bypassed the motive aspect which would have impelled the respondent to exterminate his wife.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the extra- judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to PW-8 was considered threadbare by the trial Court and found it unworthy of credence. He also contended that the remaining circumstances are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, after assailing each of the circumstances presented by the prosecution.
8. We have an obvious handicap in going into the merits of the case because the High Court has refused to consider the case on merits. This is not a case where the revision should have been dismissed summarily as has been done by the High Court. The case as presented by the prosecution requires a detailed scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence at the revisional stage, particularly because the State did not choose to file any appeal. Interest of justice requires that the revisional jurisdiction should have been exercised in an effective manner for ascertaining whether the acquittal was unmerited and consequently whether there was miscarriage of justice.
9. Without making any remark on the merits of the rival contentions we feel that this is a case for remitting the case to the High Court for disposal of the revision afresh after considering the merits of the case. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the High Court for disposal afresh in the light of the observations made above.