BALWINDER KAUR Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the acquittal of Jasbir Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur (respondents herein) for the offences under Ss. 419, 420, 406, 407, 468, 471, 120/-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC), the complainantapplicant-appellant has filed present application under Sec. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) for Special Leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on 24/2/2016.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that Mohan Singh So Sh. Ganda Singh, who died on 27/1/2007, was father of applicant-complainant and was father-in-law of respondent No. 2 (Sukhwinder Kaur). During his life time, he was operating a bank account bearing No. 25126 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Kamran Road, Ludhiana, and thereby he was keeping amount of about Rs.1,00,000.00 (One Lac only). However, he never withdrew the said amount. As such after his death, all his legal heirs were entitled to get the refund of amount according to their share, but respondents, by forging his signatures, got withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 from the bank account of deceased-Mohan Singh. The amount was withdrawn by the respondents by impersonating some other person in place of deceased-Mohan Singh. In order to seek the prosecution of these respondents, the complainant- appellant (Balwinder Kaur) led PW evidence and on the basis of her preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned by the trial Court for commission of offences under Ss. 467, 468, 471 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant led the pre-charge evidence and in the pre-charge evidence, she appeared herself in the witness box as CW1 (own witness) and she examined her husband Jaswinder Singh-CW3, besides she examined CW2 Kuldeep Singh. During post-charge evidence, accused did not exercise their right to further cross-examine the prosecution witness, and as a result thereof, the statement of accusedrespondents under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial Court, in which, all the incriminating circumstances, appearing by way of evidence of prosecution against the respondentaccused, were put to them and they pleaded innocence and false implication.

(3.) On the basis of weak evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the commission of offences for which they have been charge-sheeted.