Crl. Rev.no. 1410 of 2003 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev.no. 1410 of 2003 (O&M) Decided on : 26-09-2011 Avtar Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Phurvinder Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar dated 2.12.2002 vide which the respondent no.1-accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 366 IPC. The petitioner who is the complainant alleges that his wife Paramjit Kaur was abducted by the respondent no.1-accused and which occurrence was witnessed by Gurmail Kaur. The respondent who faced the proceedings denied the fact that Paramjit Kaur was abducted by him and further states that she was not staying with him after the alleged abduction. As a measure of defence he stated that there was deep rooted litigation between him and the petitioner as a result of which the present FIR has been lodged. Learned Trial Court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that Paramjit Kaur was abducted and the solitary eye witness Crl. Rev.no. 1410 of 2003 (O&M) 2 Gurmail Kaur had expired before her statement could be recorded. In the absence of any evidence, the accused-respondent no.1 was acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the statement of Gurmail Kaur recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C should have been considered by the learned Trial Court in the absence of any other evidence and also considering the fact that Gurmail Kaur had died. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has supported the judgment and stated that the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent as there w as no evidence on record to prove the case against him. After considering the contentions which have been raised before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the same do not warrant any acceptance as the prosecution has not been able to collect any material which could have established that Paramjit Kaur was abducted by the respondent no.1-accused and further still that she was staying with him after abduction. This fact was required to be investigated and proved independently even if the testimony of Gurmail Kaur could not be recorded on account of the fact that she had expired yet there should have been sufficient material to suggest that the allegations made by the petitioner were worthy of credence. Merely because Paramjit Kaur is missing does not imply that the accused- respondent no.1 has abducted her and that she is staying with him. Since prosecution has failed to establish these facts linking the absence of Paramjit Kaur with accused – respondent no.1, I am of th considered opinion that the instant revision is without any merit and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. September 26, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge