Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Harmit Singh on 14 December, 2009
Criminal Appeal No.546-MA of 2009(O&M) -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.546-MA of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision : 14.12.2009
State of Punjab ....Appellant
Versus
Harmit Singh ...Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellant.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Criminal Misc. No.46828 of 2009 For the affidavit-supported reasons indicated in the application, the Criminal Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 33 days in fling the appeal is condoned.
Criminal Appeal No.546-MA of 2009 The learned Trial Court, in support of the finding of exoneration of respondent-accused from liability, recorded a finding of fact that the parcel of sample was despatched after seven days of the alleged recovery. It was further noticed that the land owners of the fields situated in the immediate vicinity of place of recovery had not been cited as witnesses. It also drew sustenance from the fact that the only independent witness joined by the prosecution ditched the prosecution plea and had opted to appear in defence evidence. The learned Trial Court also noticed that there was complete want of evidence to prove that the case property Criminal Appeal No.546-MA of 2009(O&M) -2- **** remained intact with effect from the time of recovery and till it was forwarded to the FSL for analysis thereof.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out that there is any factual inaccuracy in the impugned judgment.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it so ordered accordingly.
Disposed of accordingly.
December 14, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE