DILBAGH RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 04.02.2010, whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted of charges under Sections 364-A, 382 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Relevant facts of the case that on 10.02.2008, Dilbagh Singhcomplainant reported to the police that on 17.01.2008, his son Rajiv Pal had gone to railway station so as to go Delhi. At about 5.30 P.M., complainant received a telephonic call from his son that some unidentified persons abducted him and threatened to kill him. Rajiv Pal also informed that Gurvinder Singh @ Prince and two other persons would be coming to him and they be given rupees one lac and jewellry. At about 8.30 P.M., Gurvinder Singh along with two persons came to the house of complainant in Indica Car. Gurvinder Singh was calling the said two persons (co-accused) as Charanjit Singh and Mannu. Gurvinder Singh asked the complainant to hand-over rupees one lac and jewellry, if he wanted the safety of life of his son Rajiv Pal. Complainant gave rupees one lac in cash and one lady's necklace of gold weighing 21/2 tolas to them. While leaving the said place, the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences, in case the matter reported to the police or anybody. Because of fear, complainant could not inform the police. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered. Accused-Gurvinder Singh was arrested. During the period of police remand and as per disclosure statement dated 16.02.2008, one wrist watch and a ring of gold, which had fallen to his share, were kept concealed by him in residential house. Said articles were recovered from his possession. Gurvinder Singh also produced a photo copy of the paper containing certain telephone numbers and same was taken into police custody. The other co-accused could not be arrested and they were declared proclaimed offenders. During the trial, charge for commission of offences under Sections 383, 364-A and 120-B was framed but trial Magistrate after closing the prosecution witnesses, examined accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After considering the prosecution version and defence version and while disbelieving the testimony of both the material witnesses and giving benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted-Gurvinder Singh, vide judgment dated 04.02.2010. The appellant is in appeal against the said judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the material and evidence available on file though the prosecution case was proved beyond doubt. Learned trial Judge merely disbelieved the testimony of both the material witnesses on the ground that there were certain discrepancies on the minor points. Such discrepancies are bound to occur, if the testimony of witnesses recorded after lapse of considerable period. Learned trial Judge also wrongly formed the opinion that the delay in reporting the matter to the police was a factor and on that account prosecution witness could not be believed. The judgment of acquittal has been recorded merely on assumptions. So, judgment dated 04.02.2010 be set aside and accused be punished according to law.