MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been preferred by complainant Malkiat Singh challenging judgment dated 01.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar whereby respondent No. 2 Harjinder Singh and respondent No. 3 Narinder Singh have been acquitted of charges under Sections 457, 380, 436, 148, 149 IPC.

(2.) FIR No. 81 dated 15.12.2011 was registered on the statement of appellant Malkiat Singh before SI Sawinder Singh averring that he was running a tailor shop in Tarsikka market for the last 20 years. His brother Amarjit Singh was also running general merchant shop and readymade garments shop. Eviction proceedings were pending at the instance of one Didar Singh. It is claimed that accused Harjinder Singh and Narinder Singh during the pendency of litigation purchased the shops and claimed themselves to be the owners. They started pressing for vacation of premises. Respondent - Narinder Singh on 14.12.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. came to the appellant's shop and asked him to vacate the same failing which they would set it on fire. He went away after threatening the appellantcomplainant. Complainant and his brother Amarjit Singh as usual proceeded to their residence at about 7.30 p.m. after closing their shops. On the next day i.e. 15.12.2011 at about 7.40 a.m., they were informed telephonically by Harjit Singh alias Golu that their shops were lying open, articles lying scattered and burnt. Complainant alongwith his brother Amarjit Singh, nephew Mangaljit Singh and other residents of village proceeded to their shop and noticed the shutter of the general merchant shop broken open. No articles were lying inside both the shops. Articles lying outside were already burnt. Allegedly seven machines, unstitched clothes, counter, fans, inverter, battery as well as cash amounting to Rs. 36,000/ - were found missing. Loss worth Rs. 12 lakhs was allegedly caused to them by respondents - Harjinder Singh, Narinder singh alongwith their sons and unidentified persons with a motive to get the shops vacated. On completion of investigation, challan/report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed against the above mentioned accused persons to which they pleaded innocence and claimed trial. Prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. Accused respondents pleaded innocence and false implication at the time of recording of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court on examining the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record acquitted respondents No. 2 and 3 of the charges against them as it was found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Hence aggrieved, present appeal has been filed by the complainant.