PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Prem Kumar (PW- 3) lodged a report with the police on the board allegations that he was Ex-sarpanch of Canal Colony, Makhu. On 13.12.2008 at about 2.00 p.m, his nephew Vishal Sharma @ Vishu s/o Sudesh Kumar was present on Bangaliwala Bridge. Sarabjit Kaur wife of Bagicha Singh reached there and she took the mobile phone from Vishal Sharma on the pretext to purchase the same. Despite repeated requests, Sarabjit Kaur did not return the mobile to Vishal Sharma rather she told that she would inform the family members of Vishal Sharma that he was engaged in wrong activities with her. Vishal Sharma told the entire incident to Prem Kumar (PW3) and Shiv Sagar, the maternal uncle of Vishal Sharma. At about 3.00 p.m when Vishal Sharma came to Bangaliwala Bridge where Samma, Harjit Singh and Krishan Chand were present and they threatened Vishal Sharma that in case he would take the mobile phone then they would blacken his face and make him to sit on a donkey and take a round in the Canal Colony, Makhu. Vishal Sharma felt ashamed and on that account he in the same evening, after removing his clothes jumped into Ferozepur feeder canal one kilometer ahead of Bangaliwala Bridge. The investigation was conducted and ultimately the charge-sheet was filed against Sarabjit Kaur only. Samma, Krishan Chand and Harjit Singh were placed in column No.2.

(3.) The case was committed to the Court of Session. Charge under Section 306, IPC was framed against Sarabjit Kaur and thereafter, the complainant/applicant-Prem Kumar appeared as a prosecution witness and after his deposition, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C was presented for summoning of Samma, Prem Chand and Harjit Singh which was allowed and they were summoned as additional accused. Therefore, charge was framed against all the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.