SAWRAJ SINGH Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was an eye -witness to the incident, against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Briefly, the facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that FIR No. 191 dated 13.10.2005 was registered against eight accused persons under Sections 148, 323, 326, 302, 307, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Madhuban. After investigation, the final report was submitted, wherein 26 witnesses, in total, were cited including the present petitioner, who was at serial No. 16. He was an eye -witness to the incident. Another person namely Ram Kumar was also cited as eyewitness. The postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Raj Kumar and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. However, only five witnesses i.e. PW -1 to PW -5 out of 26 were examined and none of them have supported the case of prosecution. The public prosecutor made a statement before the trial Court to close evidence. Both the aforementioned witnesses i.e., Swaraj Singh and Ram Kumar were not examined and the evidence was closed on that very day. The accused were acquitted of the charge by the trial Court vide judgment dated 15.09.2006.

(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who has stated to be an eye -witness to the incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of acquittal was based on the statement made by witnesses PW -1 to PW -5, however, the petitioner as well as other eye -witnesses were not examined. Even the Investigating Officer was not examined. The doctors as well as other officials who prepared Ballistic Expert report were not examined. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner as well as other eye -witness namely, Ram Kumar were willing to support the case of the prosecution but they were not examined in spite of the fact that they were present before the trial Court on that very day. The public prosecutor has not performed her duty properly and no justification on her part can be accepted to give up two eye -witnesses. The evidence was closed by the public prosecutor without recording the statement of aforementioned eye -witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer and also the doctor. There was stated to be a collusion between the accused persons and the public prosecutor and because of that reason only, five PWs were examined and after recording of their statement, the evidence was closed by making statement before the trial Court. It was the duty of the trial Court to issue summons to the Investigating Officer in case, he was not present at the time of recording of statement. Out of total 26 witnesses, the Doctors, Investigating Officer and witnesses of recoveries and also the Ballistic Expert were not allowed to get their statements recorded.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the present revision by one of the witnesses is not maintainable. The revision only by the complainant is maintainable. The evidence was closed as the remaining witnesses were won over and accordingly, they were given up and their statements were not recorded.