IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 583-SBA of 2003 Date of Decision : January 22, 2010 State of Punjab ....Appellant Versus Lakhwinder Singh @ Bhola .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. P.S. Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The respondent was tried by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Vide order dated 27.9.2000, the said Court acquitted him of those charges as there was no incriminating evidence brought by the prosecution on record which could be put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his examination as such was dispensed with. Aggrieved of the same, the State of Punjab has filed the present appeal. In support of ocular account, the prosecution had cited Gurjit Singh and Kuldip Singh. They were examined as PWs 2 and 3, respectively. Only their examination-in-chief was recorded but the cross-examination was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to the accused in that regard. The accused then filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was accepted by the trial Court on 3.6.1999 by granting only one opportunity to the accused to cross-examine aforementioned Gurjit Singh and Kuldip Singh. Thereafter, despite repeated issuance of summons, both Criminal Appeal No. 583-SBA of 2003 -2- Gurjit Singh and Kuldip Singh did not turn up for their cross- examination. I have perused the records of the case which show that the trial Court had to repeatedly adjourn the proceedings so as to enable the prosecution to produce Gurjit Singh and Kuldip Singh for their cross-examination by the accused. On none of those dates, numbering about 20, any one of these two witnesses came present before the trial Court. Ultimately, on 27.9.2000, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence. As Gurjit Singh PW2 and Kuldip Singh PW3, did not appear before the trial Court for their cross-examination by the accused, their examination-in-chief could not be read as evidence. These two witnesses were the main witnesses of the prosecution as they claimed to have seen the occurrence in question. Once their examination-in-chief is held to be of no use in the absence of these witnesses putting in appearance before the trial Court for the purposes of their cross-examination, there was no incriminating evidence available with the prosecution which could be put to the accused for examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court was, accordingly, justified in dispensing with the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and consequently acquitting the respondent. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 22, 2010 JUDGE satish