IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.571-MA of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 13.09.2011 Rajender …..Applicant versus Rajesh @ Kale and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.Avtar Krishan, Advocate for the applicant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 7.2.2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhajjar. Respondent No.1, a juvenile, was sent to face trial in FIR No.201 dated 16.8.2008 under Section 302 IPC. The facts of the case as noted by the trial Court in paragraph No.2 of the judgment read thus:- “2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Rajender Singh s/o Banwari stated to the police on 16.8.2008 that his father died 18 years ago and his mother is alive. They were three brothers out of which Hari Ram was eldest and then Ram Niwas. Complainant is youngest and Sushil is sister of complainant who is married. Complainant is also married having four children. Wife of Hari Ram expired four years Crl.Misc.No.571-MA of 2011(O&M) ago. Ram Niwas and Hari Ram are having no child and they all are residing. On 15.8.2008 at about 8.30/ 9.00 ‘O’ clock Hari Ram went out from the home in search of a bicycle of Ram Niwas. On 16.8.2008, Billu s/o Kishan Shah, Ram Phal s/o Lakhi Ram came to the complainant and told him that dead body of Hari Ram is lying in the fields of Hoshiar s/o Bakhtawar r/o – Bambulia. Complainant went at spot and he found the dead body lying of Hari Ram in the fields of Hoshiar. Neck of Hari Ram was tied up with rope of Piajama and there were injury mark on the forehead and chest. Someone of the person killed Hari Ram. So legal action be taken.” On the basis of a statement made by Rajender, brother of the deceased, above FIR was recorded. On conclusion of investigation, final report was put in Court. Taking note of age of respondent No.1, the matter was put up before Juvenile Justice Board for trial. It was a blind murder and the case of the prosecution rests upon extra judicial confession (Ex.PW3/A) and also last seen evidence. The competent Court has opined that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of links which may lead to a conclusion that the offence was committed by respondent No.1. Extra judicial confession (Ex.PW3/A) was rightly discarded on the ground that it was not natural for respondent No.1 to make a statement before Rajender (PW3) who is a brother of the deceased. In the same manner, statement made by Naval Kishore (PW5) also did not find favour with the Court below. It was rightly noted that respondent No.1 had no special relation with the above witness and further that the witnesses had not produced any accused earlier, before the police. Sufficient reasons have been given to discard evidence of above witnesses 2 Crl.Misc.No.571-MA of 2011(O&M) in paragraph No.28 of the judgment. Appeal is also barred by limitation. The explanation given for the same is not satisfactory. Furthermore as per provision of Section 52(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the present appeal is not competent. In view of facts mentioned above, both the applications for condonation of delay and also for leave to file an appeal are dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 13.09.2011 (Sabina) gk Judge 3