Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of U.T. Chandigarh vs Deepak Kumar Son Of Suresh Kumar Son Of ... on 31 August, 2009
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. 331-MA of 2009
Date of Decision : August 31, 2009
State of U.T. Chandigarh
.... Petitioner
Vs.
Deepak Kumar son of Suresh Kumar son of Siri Chand and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
* * *
Present : Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T.,
for the appellant.
* * *
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
The present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the U.T. Chandigarh wherein it has prayed for grant of leave to appeal while challenging the order dated 14.07.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide which the accused have been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to connect the accused with the commission of offences at least beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and giving the benefit of doubt, the Court has acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them.
Counsel for the UT Chandigarh submits that the only reason, which has been taken by the trial Court for acquittal of the accused, is that Crl. Misc. No. 331-MA of 2009 -2- the independent witness has not been examined before the Court. He submits that the prosecution evidence was closed by order. The prosecution did not get proper opportunity to complete its evidence and, therefore, the ground of non-production of the independent witness cannot be made the sole basis for acquittal of the accused. He further submits that the official witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the acquittal granted by the Court would not be sustainable.
I have heard the counsel for the applicant-appellant and have gone through the records of the case.
One of the reasons, which has been given by the Court, is that the independent witness was joined when the recovery was effected and when the accused were apprehended but he has not been produced before the Court. The reason for this, according to the counsel for the applicant- appellant, is that the prosecution evidence was closed by order. Nothing has been placed on record to show that how many opportunities were granted to the prosecution to complete its evidence. It has come on record that the FIR is dated 11.02.2004 and the charge, in the present case, was framed on 04.11.2004. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned for the prosecution witnesses. The Court, after giving due opportunities, has proceeded to close the evidence of the prosecution vide order dated 20.03.2008. This goes beyond doubt to show that the prosecution has failed to produce its evidence and the trial was continuing without the evidence being completed for more than four years. The order passed by the trial Court is fully justified with regard to the order of closure of the evidence of the prosecution. Apart from the reason for non-production of the independent witness, the Court has pointed out the discrepancies in the statements, which have been made by the official witnesses. HC Baljit Crl. Misc. No. 331-MA of 2009 -3- Singh PW-2 and SI Jaspal Singh PW-7 were the main witnesses. The statement of HC Baljit Singh PW-2, who was the person who was sent in civil dress as a shadow witness following the secret informer. In the Examination-in-Chief, he stated that the persons were planning to rob Mahajan Jewellers, when he heard this conversation, he signalled the police party to come to the place and apprehend the accused. This factum is not mentioned in the complaint. Further it has been stated that no independent witness was available there, whereas it has come on record that at the tubewell farm road near Gogi Farm, which is a Government tubewell and Government Operator is on duty from morning 11 A.M. or 12 P.M. and further many labourers and gardners were residing at the Gogi Farm but no effort was made to join any of the witnesses. This also has been taken into consideration by the trial Court for not believing the prosecution story. In view of the reasons, which have been mentioned by the trial Court in its judgment apart from non-production of the independent witness, which is the discrepancy in the statement of HC Baljit Singh PW-2 and SI Jaspal Singh PW-7, finding, which has been recorded by the trial Court, is fully justified. The jurisdiction of the Court while considering an appeal against acquittal is restricted to the extent that if there are two views possible, the view, which goes in favour of the accused, should be given precedence.
I do not find any merit in the present application for grant of leave, therefore, the same stands dismissed.
August 31, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE