IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.389 of 2001 Date of Decision 23.07.2010 Krishan Lal ...... Petitioner VERSUS Ranbir Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Narinder Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aggrieved against the judgment dated 28.08.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, acquitting respondents No.1 & 2-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') from the charges under Section 306 IPC, the petitioner-complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') has preferred this petition. Ghanshayam Lal complainant, who was working as Head Clerk in Nirankari College, Sohna, committed suicide for which the accused Ranbir Singh and Bharat Lal were prosecuted. However, finding no sufficient evidence to indict them for the commission of the crime, they were acquitted. Having perused the judgment, it transpires that the name of Ranbir Singh could not be found in the suicide note. He was implicated in the case on account of party faction. There is nothing about the role of Ranbir Singh in the FIR. The allegation against him is that Bharat Lal was Criminal Revision No.389 of 2001 -2- requested by the complainant not to proceed with the complaint. Bharat Lal was claiming that the Principal and the college staff were at his back and he would ruin Ghanshyam Lal but the evidence does not disclose if he had made any such utterances which may amount to instigating, aiding or abetting Sham Lal to commit suicide. After scrutinizing the statement of Madhu Bala, wife of Ghanshyam Lal, the truth has come out that Ghanshyam Lal had kidney problem and he was worried about his ill health, as such, he could not sleep throughout the night. The allegations against Ranbir Singh could not be established by leading cogent and convincing evidence. All this goes to show that the respondents-accused were not the perpetrators of the crime. The impugned judgment does not suggest any such illegality much less irregularity warranting interference by this Court. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 23.07.2010 mamta-II