STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MANOJ ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Rs Cr. P. C. ' for short), has been filed by the applicant-State, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgement of acquittal dated 30.5.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) Facts first. A complaint was lodged by PW-5 Rameshwar on 30.6.2010 to the effect that he had two sons namely; Vinod and Surender. His elder son Vinod was running a dairy. In the night, at about 3.30 AM, he received a telephonic message from Joginder S/o Ram Phal, asking him about his son Vinod. The complainant replied that he was not aware about Vinod. Joginder informed the complainant that wife of Vinod was unwell and Vinod was missing from home since 10 PM. After some time, Joginder went to P. K. Colony, Sonepat, where the wife of Vinod told him that Vinod had gone out of the house, saying that he was to take back Rs 20,000/- from Narender. He also disclosed that Vinod was having a mobile No. 9813375288 with him. The complainant searched for his son, but he was not found. In the morning, Anoop told him that he had received a telephone call from the police, that the dead body of Vinod was lying on the road, on the bridge of Kakroi river. Complainant reached at the spot and identified the dead body of his son. On the basis of said complaint, FIR Ex. PU was registered by S. I. , Raj Rani, PW-10.

(3.) During the investigation, accused Manoj was arrested. He suffered a disclosure statement implicating other accused in the case. Thereafter, accused Sunil @ Meenu and Gurmeet were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. , was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate.