Crl.Rev.No.M-2096 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.M-2096 of 2007. Decided on: February 03, 2010. Raj Kumar .. Petitioner VERSUS Surjit Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.N.K.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Heard. This is a revision against the acquittal. Leave has been sought. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of extra- judicial confession made by the accused before PW.2 Ravinder Pal Singh, the respondent-accused should have been acquitted. I have gone through the judgment of acquittal. In the present case the only circumstantial evidence which was . . . 1 Crl.Rev.No.M-2096 of 2007 produced by the prosecution against the respondent was extra judicial confession made before PW.2, which was recorded after lapse of 15 years of the occurrence. The circumstances in which the said extra judicial confession was made are not established on the record. There was no occasion for the accused to make any statement before his alleged employer as there was neither any threat of his arrest nor he was named as an accused. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that extra judicial confession to some extent could be believed then the complete chain pointing towards the guilt of respondent is not complete. There is no circumstantial evidence to complete the chain of circumstances indicating that it is the respondent and respondent only who could have committed the crime. The benefit of doubt seems to have rightly been granted to the respondent. No ground is made out for re-appreciation of evidence and to arrive at a conclusion, different from the one arrived at by the Courts below. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 03, 2010. rka . . . 2