Criminal Revision No.484 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.484 of 2003. Date of Decision : 14.3.2011. Kamla Devi ...... Petitioner Versus Rajiv Mehta & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated October 17th, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Hoshiarpur, whereby, respondents were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No.99 dated August 18th, 1994 under Sections 201 and 302/120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station City, Hoshiarpur. 2. On January 13th, 1992 Harbans Lal-father of Rajinder Mohan (deceased) lodged a report (Mark-PA) in Police Station, Hoshiarpur. It was stated that his son Rajinder Mohan left the house on January 4th, 1992 but did not return. A search was made but his whereabouts could not be known. He did not suspect anybody's involvement. The matter was investigated by Ishwar Singh. During investigation, Sahib Parminder Singh-respondent No.2 made confessional statement (Exhibit PF) to the effect that Rajinder Mohan (deceased) was student of Mahaua Biswas-respondent No.3. They fell in love with each other. He also used to love Mahaua Criminal Revision No.484 of 2003 2 Biswas. Later on, he married her. It was further confessed by him that on January 4th, 1992 he along with one Lucky killed the deceased after pouring patrol on him and the dead body was thrown in the hills. On the statement of Parminder Singh, no recovery of any sort was made. The dead body of the deceased was not recovered. 3. On completion of investigation, the respondents were arraigned for trial. 4. The respondents were charged under Sections 201 and 302/120-B IPC. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. There is no direct evidence in this case against the respondents. Only suspicion arose against the respondents that they murdered the deceased apart from the confessional statement made by respondent No.2. Per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, confessional statement cannot be taken into consideration. It is settled law that suspicion alone, howsoever strong it may be, cannot be substituted for proof. An overall view of the evidence and circumstances in this case does not even raise a strong suspicion against the accused. 6. The trial Judge correctly marshaled the facts and circumstances and rightly acquitted the respondents. 7. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Thus, the revision is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 14.3.2011. SN