IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-40845 of 2007 Date of Decision: October 15, 2008 Ram Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Sura, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has pointed out that after polygraph test report was inconclusive even Narco analysis of the suspects has been made. The report is taken on record. The following is the relevant portion from the report:- “Salient Findings: . Balwantsingh, the father of Hanuman Singh and Mahendrasingh had bought 1 canal and 37 majila of land from Yaadram. . Balwantsingh had bought another land of 7 majila adjacent to the land which he had earlier bought from Yaadram. . Ramsingh, who is the cousin of Crl. Misc. No. M-40845 of 2007 [2] Yaadram, does not allow Balwantsingh sons to enter into the land which they have bought from Yaadram. . Sudheesh, the deceased is the son of Ramsingh. . Sudheesh has never talked with the sons of Balwantsingh especially; regarding the land possession. . He did not have good relationship with his father, Ramsingh and also with his wife. . Sudheesh had become alcoholic after the divorce. . Sudheesh body was found on 22/2/2005 in the dirty canal of the park. . Hanumant Singh and Manhendrasingh’s mother died on the 17/2/05. As per the social custom the Hanumant and Mahendrasingh were physically present at their residence. . Ramsingh has filed the complaint after fourteen months of the death of Sudheesh. . Ramsingh has given the physical evidence of brick which he collected from the crime scene place on the next day of the incident, which he presented to the police after fourteen months of the incident. Case Summary: As per the case record files, the suspect’s narration and other records it is elicited that Hanumant Singh and Mahendra Singh are the sons of Balwantsingh living independently and shares close-knit relationship. Hanumant Singh works as an agent in Bodeyakamalpur while as Mahendra Singh words as security person in Delhi. He daily commutes from Rewari to Delhi. Balwantsingh had bought the land from Yaadram in 1986, on which Ramsingh has taken the illegal possession. After Crl. Misc. No. M-40845 of 2007 [3] the death of Balwant Singh, his sons have approached the court and have filed a case against Ramsingh for the possession of the land. Since then Ramsingh and Balwant Singh’s family has often verbal/ physical fights. Sudheesh, Ramsingh’s son was found dead on 22/2/05 in Tularam park wherein both Hanumant Singh and Mahendra Singh were attending the social custom of their mother’s death who had died on 17/2/05. Although they had fight with Ramsingh, his son Sudheesh has never talked with them either formally or on the issue of possessing the land. Ramsingh has filed the complaint and submitted ‘brick’ as evidence collected from the crime scene on the next day of the death of his son to the police station after the 14 months which is less meaningful and relevant. Conclusion: As per the information elicited in Narco interview Hanumant and Mahendra Singh have good interpersonal relationship. Both brothers are legally fighting for the land which is unlawfully possessed by Ramsingh. Although the latest judgment is in their favor, Ramsingh has still not given the possession of the land. In 1993, they had physical fight regarding the land, wherein Ramsingh had tried to fire from the gun which is at present deposited in the police station. Sudheesh’s body was found in the dirty canal of Tularam park on 22/2/05. At that time, both brothers were reported to be in Bodeyakamalpur, for attending the social custom for the death of their mother which can be corroborated by the I.O. After fourteen months of the incident, Ramsingh has submitted the ‘brick’ as physical evidence and filed complaint on i.e. 19/4/06 for which ulterior motives are to be investigated. Opinion: It appears that Sudheesh was not in talking terms with Balwantsingh and his family. No information of harassing them verbally or physically, Crl. Misc. No. M-40845 of 2007 [4] which makes obvious motive to kill him could be elicited in narco interview. An intention to file the complaint after fourteen months of the incident i.e. 19/4/06 submitting the brick as evidence needs to be investigated.” Learned counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, contends that no incriminating material could be collected against the alleged suspects. The investigation has been completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would avail his remedy of filing objections to the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and therefore, wants to withdraw the petition. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (AJAI LAMBA) October 15, 2008 JUDGE avin