DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition petitioner/complainant assails the order dtd. 21/3/2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned SDJM, Sunam in case no.CHI/269/2017 vide which the learned Trial Court has closed the prosecution evidence by order.

(2.) The matter arises out of FIR No.38 dtd. 21/4/2016 registered under Ss. 279, 337, 427, 304-A IPC at Police Station City Sunam pertaining to death of petitioner's brother and injuries to petitioner's nephew. While the FIR was lodged in the year 2016, the prosecution could not complete its evidence. Injured Sukhwinder Singh i.e. nephew of the petitioner had gone abroad and as such his statement could not be recorded. However, upon an application moved by the complainant, permission was granted to get the statement of aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh recorded by means of video conferencing. As many as five opportunities were afforded to get the statement of Sukhwinder Singh recorded through video conferencing but somehow the same could not be recorded. On 15/2/2024 which was the fifth opportunity for recording statement of Sukhwinder Singh through video conferencing, counsel representing the complainant stated that aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh will be shortly coming down to India in the next month and requested for adjournment. Such request was accepted and the complainant was directed to complete his evidence on the next date of hearing i.e. by 21/3/2024. However, even on the said date the aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh was not present and another request for adjournment was made which was not accepted and consequently the Trial Court while observing that as many as five opportunities have been granted, closed the evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although directions had been issued for recording the statement of injured Sukhwinder Singh through video conferencing but the requisite formalities were not completed by the prosecution inasmuch as the information was not sent to remote point so as to facilitate identification of the witness i.e. injured Sukhwinder Singh in U.K., which was a pre-requisite for recording statement of any witness. Learned counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the complainant cannot be made to suffer on account of any inaction on part of the prosecution.