IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.750 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2011 LOVEPREET KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ashu Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. GS Kaura, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 12.10.2006, rendered by Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which respondent No.2 has been acquitted. 2 The relevant discussion finds mention in paras 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment. 3 It is a case initiated on registration of FIR. 4 It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered after 8- 1/2 months of the incident. The case of the prosecution hinges only on circumstantial evidence. Last seen evidence has come by way of statements of Pargat Singh, PW-8, and Ambey Sood, PW-9, who saw the deceased in the company of respondent No.2 on 22.1.2005 at about 6/7 p.m. The evidence in regard to Criminal Revision No.750 of 2007 2 motive, has come in the shape of statement of complainant- Harbans Kaur, PW-2. 5 During investigation, the prosecution recorded the statement of Jagroop Singh, according to which, respondent No.2 made extra judicial confession before Jagroop Singh. Jagroop Singh, however, has not been examined by the prosecution, rather has been given up. Jagroop Singh was a material witness. 6 Pargat Singh, PW-8, has been found to be involved in a case under Section 182, Code of Criminal Procedure, for giving false evidence and, therefore, his evidence has been found to be untrustworthy. The other witness i.e. Ambey Sood, PW-9, is involved in a cheating case. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that any piece of evidence, which was material, has not been considered by the trial court. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show misreading of any piece of evidence, which has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 8 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. The reasons assigned by the Sessions Judge are based on relevant material. 9 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 13, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?