GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, whose father Kapoor Singh was done to death by respondents No.2 to 5 and, thus, a 'victim' as defined under Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby respondents No.2 to 5 stand acquitted of the charges under Section 120-B IPC and Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. It was the appellant, who had set the machinery of law into motion by making statement before Inspector Gurmit Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Lohian to the effect that on 23.1.2012 at about 7.30 a.m. when he went to the Kotha of electric motor at his cattle shed in the fields for serving tea to his father, he found his dead body lying near the water tank and blood was splattered all around. There were injuries on the head, face and nose on the dead body of his father, which were apparently inflicted with a sharp edged weapon. The appellant expressed suspicion against Sukhdev Singh-respondent of having a hand in the murder of his father with the help of some other persons as there was land dispute with said Sukhdev Singh.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgment and the trial Court record, this Court finds that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence. In order to establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused Sandeep Singh alias Don, Vipan and Pargat alias Paggi, the prosecution examined PW6 Surjit Singh son of Karnail Singh. Said Surjit Singh belonged to village Khosa, whereas the aforementioned three accused were residents of different villages. There is no material on the record that Surjit Singh son of Karnail Singh had any prior acquaintance with those three accused. It was about 7.00 p.m. on 22.1.2012 when Surjit Singh son of Karnail Singh was said to have seen the three accused with the deceased. It being almost the coldest day of the year and sun had already set, no light could be there in which Surjit Singh could have identified those accused. The prosecution tried to establish that Surjit Singh had seen the three accused in the moon-light, however, the fact was that it was a moonless night, it being just one night prior to Amavas. Under these circumstances, it was well nigh impossible for PW6 Surjit Singh son of Karnail Singh to have seen the three accused with the deceased.

(3.) According to the prosecution, accused Sukhdev Singh met PW13 Surjit Singh son of Sadhu Singh and made extra-judicial confession. However, it was highly improbable for accused Sukhdev Singh, who is resident of village Khosa, to go all the way to village Ramewal, the village of PW13 Surjit Singh son of Sadhu Singh. Said Surjit Singh son of Sadhu Singh admitted that he was neither Member Panchayat nor Lambardar nor even Sarpanch of his village and accused Sukhdev Singh had no relationship with him, whatsoever.