PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. MOHANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 10.1.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/ victim challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, dated 19.9.2011, was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/victim submits that the occurrence was of August, 2002. After registration of the FIR, the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was submitted before learned Area Judicial Magistrate on 9.6.2004 and thereafter the charges were framed on 14.1.2005. The victim and other material witnesses had shifted from Hoshiarpur to Jalandhar and, as such, they were never served. Perusal of the interim (zimni) orders passed by learned Trial Court would reveal that the accused/respondent, Kulwinder Singh, remained absent on several dates and, as such, he was ultimately declared as a proclaimed offender. Thereafter, one more accused did not appear before learned Court below and, as such, learned Trial Court had to adjourn the case on several dates. It was also pointed out that the case during course of trial was transferred to various Presiding Officers on one count or the other. The interim (zimni) orders would further reveal that on several dates the Presiding Officers were not holding the Court and, as such, the witnesses could not be examined. It has also been pointed out that for the first time it was brought to the notice of the learned Trial Judge that the witnesses had shifted to Jalandhar from Hoshiarpur and, as such, on 1.7.2011 it was directed that summons be issued to Paramjit Kaur, Resham Singh, Jasvir Kaur and Shingara Singh at their address at Jalandhar. But on the next date, there was no reference with regard to issuance of summons to the witnesses. Thereafter on 27.8.2011, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court. He further pointed out that sufficient opportunities were not afforded to the witnesses for suffering their statements and, as such, the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. He further pointed out that as soon as the petitioner/ victim came to know about the judgment of acquittal, then he immediately filed the appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, and the same has also been dismissed without according cogent reasons.

(3.) IN addition, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had also pointed out that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the ingredients of Sections 323 and 452, IPC, are not attracted.