GURMUKH SINGH Vs. SHAILINDER BHARDWAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.05.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pehowa, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 3 of the impugned judgment, are that on 14.08.2007, a complaint was received from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra to the effect that respondents cheated the complainant by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 8,95,000/ - on the pretext of sending him to Italy, that on 13.05.2007, complainant gave Rs. 5,95,000/ - along with his passport to respondents No. 1 & 2 in the presence of Prem Singh and Amar Singh and thereafter, the complainant was in contact with the respondents on telephone; that on 03.06.2007, the complainant arranged Rs. 3,00,000/ - from his relative and at the house of respondent Shailinder, gave this amount to the respondents in the presence of Surmukh Singh and Amar Singh and Ram Murti. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh took the complainant to Delhi on 07.06.2007 for arranging Visa. However, respondent Mohinder left Delhi due to some problem and assured the complainant that he would come with accused Shailinder. Both the accused -respondents did not turn up and thereafter, the complainant visited the house of accused Shailinder with his luggage worth Rs. 15,000/ -. However, respondent Shailinder assured him that in case the abovesaid purpose was not fulfilled then both the accused would return his money, that neither the money nor passport and luggage of the complainant was returned by the accused and they threatened to kill the complainant in future. On the basis of this statement, case was registered. After registration of case, police started investigation. On culmination of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) against the accused was submitted to the Court for trial.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 10 P.Ws., besides producing other relevant documentary evidence. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material available on record, was put to the accused. He denied all the allegations, pleaded false implication and claimed complete innocence. In their defence, accused also tendered Ex. D1 i.e. report of D.S.P.