LAKHVIR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present application has been filed under Sec. 378 (3) Crimial P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated 16.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which, accused-respondents No. 1 to 3 have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) Accused, namely, Biru Ram, Desh Raj, Mohinder Kaur, Jagtar Singh and Sito faced trial in case FIR No. 171 dated 5.12.2009 for offences punishable under Sections 363,366-A,120-B and 506 Penal Code registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana. Accused-Mohinder Kaur, Jagtar Singh and Sitio were acquitted of the charges levelled against them for offences punishable under Sec. 120-B, 363 and 366 Penal Code. However, accused- Biru Ram and Desh Raj were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 363 Penal Code but they were acquitted for offence punishable under Sec. 366 Penal Code vide judgment dated 16.5.2013. The present application for leave to appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal by the complainant but no appeal against the judgment of acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record as the daughter of applicant-complainant was minor and was kidnapped by accused-Krishan Kumar and could not be traced for a long period. Accused-Krishan Kumar was declared proclaimed offender and respondents No.1 to 3 were close family members of accused-Krishan Kumar. Learned counsel further contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly came to the conclusion that there was a dispute between accused-Biru Ram with his wife Mohinder Kaur and as litigation was pending in the Court, therefore, there was no chance of connivance of accused-Mohinder Kaur with other accused and to enter into conspiracy to kidnap minor daughter of the applicant. The trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the main accused-Krishan Kumar was in close relation of accused-respondents. He also contends that the complainant has specifically stated in his cross-examination that Jagtar Singh had kidnapped his daughter in the presence of other accused persons, namely, Mohinder Kaur and Sito. Even during cross-examination, it was specifically denied that he had involved the accused-respondents due to personal enmity. It is also the argument of learned counsel that the accused persons have failed to lead any evidence to show that they were residing separately from accused-Biru Ram and Krishan Kumar.