IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.532 of 2004 Date of Decision 29.09.2010 Jagir Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Balwinder Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.4-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Gurjit Kaur had died allegedly at the hands of Narinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Sukhvinder Singh on 03.08.1994. Jagir Singh lodged FIR No.57 dated 28.07.1995 as well as a complaint on 18.04.1998. In his complaint, he disclosed that on 03.08.1994, he alongwith his mother Gurjit Kaur @ Joginder Kaur and brother Balraj Singh was present in the house. At about 4:00 p.m., Gurjit Kaur tried to go on the plat-form of the hand pump but she fell down. On hearing sound, he and his brother went to the hand-pump and saw that Gurjit Kaur was lying unconscious. They tried to pour water on her mouth but she could not swallow. However, on 04.08.1994, Jagir Singh had given a different statement disclosing that on 01.08.1994, Gurjit Kaur @ Joginder Kaur had come to their village and told that her husband wanted to murder her. Then on 03.08.1994 at about 3:30/3:45 p.m., he went to the house of deceased and saw through the window that Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh accused-respondents had caught hold of Gurjit Kaur and Narinder Singh was pressing her neck. Again Jagir Singh filed another complaint that Joginder Kaur @ Gurjit Kaur was maltreated by the accused on account of various demands. On 01.08.1994, she had come to him and told that the accused were demanding Rs.40,000/- and she was apprehending murdered at their hands. Criminal Revision No.532 of 2004 -2- Arguments heard. Record perused. While finding that all the three complaints contained three different versions, the prosecution has failed to prove the correctness of any one of them. The trial Court appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No evidence has been led by the prosecution if Gurjit Kaur was subjected to cruelty by any of the accused. Moreover, the demand of Rs.40,000/- allegedly made by the accused could not be accepted. Sale deed Ex.D10 goes to prove that such demand could not be made. Sale deed which was executed on 01.08.1994 indicates that the sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- has already been received by the vendor from the vendee. Even in the statement made by Sukhraj Singh, it is clear that the accused other than Balwinder Singh had proceeded to Delhi on 31.07.1994 for execution of the sale deed and the same was registered on 02.08.1994. After the execution of the sale deed and receipt of the amount, it is not appealable as to why they would raise further demand of Rs.40,000/- Rather this statement is an improvement over the initial version given by Jagir Singh. It is also established on the record that the accused had been living separately from each other and no inter-se nexus stands proved. Thus, on going through the evidence and after analyzing the contradictory stand set up by the complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that no exception could be made to the expression of opinion and no other opinion than what was formed by the trial Court could be formed. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.09.2010 mamta-II