STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, preferred by the State is directed against judgment dated 02.09.2013 (for short, 'impugned judgment'), whereby court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala (trial court, for short), while convicting and sentencing Niranjan Singh (Respondent No. 1) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short), has acquitted him of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 406, IPC and under Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1985 ('1985 Act' for short), and Manjit Singh (Respondents No. 2) and Rupinder Kaur alias Sukhi (Respondent No. 3) of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 406 and 420, IPC read with Section 24 of the 1985 Act.

(2.) IN the appeal it has been prayed that respondents Niranjan Singh be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 364, IPC, and Section 24 of the 1985 Act. However, on an oral prayer of the learned Additional Advocate General, the prayer is ordered to be amended as regards setting aside acquittal of respondent Manjit Singh and Rupinder Kaur alias Sukhi as well.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel has argued that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents by ignoring the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, which proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside/modified and the respondents deserve to be convicted and punished appropriately for the offences/charges against them.