Crl.Rev No.1473 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No.1473 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.08.2011 Santokh Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Jagpal Singh, Advocate, for Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Baljinder Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 5. --- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Santokh Singh complainant (herein referred to as the petitioner) has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 1.11.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, acquitting all the accused/respondents (herein referred as the respondents) of the Crl.Rev No.1473 of 2008 2 charges 302, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. Occurrence in the case took place at 8.45 PM when the two persons riding on the scooter came across the complainant and the deceased Joga Singh. The person sitting on the pillion fired shots killing Joga Singh and injuring Santokh Singh complainant. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused/respondents with the commission of crime. Though the occurrence had taken place at 8.45 PM in the night but no test identification parade was conducted. The case is based on the extra- judicial confessions made by all the accused/respondents before PW 8 Pritam Dass, who has not supported the prosecution case. Similarly, PW 11 Tarsem Singh had disclosed before the police in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had overheard the accused conspiring to kill Joga Singh but Tarsem Singh has not supported this fact of making conspiracy by the accused to commit the murder of Joga Singh. No motive has been proved in this case. Recovery of one pallet was effected on the spot but the same was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for seeking report if the pallet was fired from the gun held by Harjinder Singh. In these circumstances, in the absence of any definite evidence much less circumstantial, completing its chain, pointing towards the guilt of the accused, it would be difficult to disturb the findings recorded by the learned trial court acquitting the accused. Crl.Rev No.1473 of 2008 3 Scope of interference by this court at revisional stage is very limited in nature. The judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity muchless irregularity warranting interference by this course. No merits. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 29.08.2011 Judge rp