IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.605 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 03, 2010 CHAMAN LAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. This petition has been filed by Chaman Lal, whose daughter is alleged to have been murdered by respondent No.2, in challenge to judgment dated 30.8.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged at the instance of informant-Gurdev Singh, indicating that on 4.5.2005 at about 8 AM, while he was working in the fields, he noticed a dead body of a woman lying in the “Khal”. The case against respondent No.2 was made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The trial court has acquitted respondent No.2 while taking into account the reason that informant-Gurdev Singh appeared Criminal Rev. No.605 of 2008 2 as PW-1 and deposed to the effect that he got his statement dated 4.5.2005, Exhibit PA, recorded on the basis of information given by Chaman Lal that his daughter was missing since the last night and had been killed by some unidentified person(s). Thus, as per the prosecution case, till the registration of the FIR, there was no suspicion against any person, including respondent No.2. Chaman Lal, PW-2, in cross-examination, admitted that the police had apprehended the accused the same day. In view of this statement of Chaman Lal, the court has concluded that the prosecution case becomes highly doubtful regarding the arrest of the accused and, later on, he being produced by PW-9 Jaswant Singh on 10.5.2005. Likewise, the proceedings regarding disclosure statement of the accused regarding recovery of wire, taking of mould of the accused and extra judicial confession dated 10.5.2005 become doubtful. This is so because Kamlesh died on the intervening night of 3/4.5.2005. PW-9 Jaswant Singh is the witness of extra judicial confession, who stated that on 10.5.2005, at about 8 AM, the accused came to him and disclosed that he had murdered his wife as he had doubt on her character and he be produced. It was, however, not disclosed to him as to with whom the deceased had illicit relations or how the accused had killed her. The witness was declared hostile on the request of the prosecution. In cross-examination, PW-9 Jaswant Singh stated that he did not know the accused earlier. In view of the nature of testimony of Jaswant Singh, the court has concluded that the extra judicial confession becomes highly doubtful. Criminal Rev. No.605 of 2008 3 The recovery of wire and screwdriver is of no consequence as the recovery is from a public place, accessible to all. No evidence has been produced by the prosecution to identify the wire as the wire that had been used in the commission of the offence. The trial court has also taken note of the fact that there is no evidence of last seen. The court has also taken note of the fact that no evidence or material had been brought on record to say that the accused had come to the house of the deceased or anybody had seen him going to the house. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not drawn the attention of the court towards any piece of evidence that has not been considered by the trial court or any material piece of evidence that has been perversely interpreted. It is the admitted case that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence of last seen. Respondent No.2 is not connected with the crime by way of any recovery, as the recovery is from a public place. No independent witness was joined at the time of recovery or disclosure statement. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the well founded judgment, vide which respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charge. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 03, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?