Criminal Revision No. 2134 of 2007(O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2134 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 17.12.2009. Dilbar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. B.S.Bali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Liyakat Ali, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 5.. S. D. ANAND, J. Criminal Misc. No.94631-2007 For the affidavit-supported reasons indicated in the application, the Criminal Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 216 days in fling the revision is condoned. Criminal Revision No.2134 of 2007 There is a precise finding by the learned Trial Court that all the four witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial did not support the prosecution plea and were declared hostile. It was thereafter that the prosecution closed its evidence. Relevant observations are noticed in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced hereunder:- “7. After recording the statements of these witnesses the court comes to the conclusion that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the prosecution version and all of them were declared hostile. As such, prosecution has closed Criminal Revision No. 2134 of 2007(O&M) -2- **** its evidence. 8. At this stage, it is to be seen if any incriminating circumstance has appeared in the prosecution with which the accused may by confronted with U/s 313 Cr.P.C. For this purpose, I have thoroughly gone through the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has examined PW1 Dalbir Singh, PW2Chamkaur Singh, PW3 Parkash Singh, PW4 Bhaur Singh but all these witnesses were declared hostile on the ground that they were intentionally suppressing the facts. They also resiled from their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The suggestions given by the prosecution that they have taken the side of the accused was opposed by them with vengeance. Be that may be but the facts remains that there is no incriminating circumstance against the accused and charge has fallen to the ground and I have no option except to hold that accused are entitled to be acquitted. As such, all the accused stands acquitted.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant argues that there were other witnesses who had made statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police attributing incriminating role to the respondents-accused. Learned counsel makes that averment when this Court invited attention to order dated 22.7.2009 of a Coordinate Bench ( Mahesh Grover, J.) of this Court wherein the following facts have been noticed:- “After arguing for some time learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to bring the necessary material to show that the impugned judgment is erroneous.” Criminal Revision No. 2134 of 2007(O&M) -3- **** Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantive evidence which may be available before the Trial Court and which may have been ignored from the consideration by the learned Trial Judge. Insofar as the point of view urged on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it lacks sanction of the law. No conviction can be based upon the statement made by a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. By the very nature of things, it is for the prosecution to cite and examine the relevant witness in support of the charge against the accused. Statements of those witnesses shall be considered substantive only after those have been tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. In this case, all the four witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution version. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and I so order accordingly. Disposed of accordingly. December 17, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE