Kuldeep Singh v. Maan Singh & ORS

CRM-A-1682-MA of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1682-MA of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.05.2018 Kuldeep Singh ...Applicant-appellant.

VERSUS

Maan Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Angrez Singh Dhindsa, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM-24793-2017 Heard. There is delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. In view of facts mentioned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 207 days in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.

CRM-A-1682-MA-2017 Heard.

Harnek Singh, father-in-law of complainant-appellant committed suicide on 05.01.2012 and the matter was reported to the police by the applicant-appellant. From the pocket of deceased a suicide note written in his handwriting was recovered in which he had blamed respondents for his suicide and mentioned therein that respondents Mann Singh, Harjit Singh and Avtar Singh were trying to grab his land and harassing him.

The police after arresting the respondents had presented challan against them and they were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Jitender Kumar 2018.05.24 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-A-1682-MA of 2017 -2Section 306 IPC.

Complainant/appellant-Kuldeep Singh when appeared as PW-1 had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. His wife PW-2, and other prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-3 Hardeep Singh, PW4 Balkar Singh and PW-5 Sarabjit Kaur had also not supported the prosecution case. No evidence was produced before the trial Court to show that deceasedHarnek Singh had any property, which respondents were trying to grab and that they were harassing him in any manner so as to abet him to take extreme step of ending his life.

This appeal has been filed by Kuldeep Singh, who is complainant and had appeared as PW-1 but did not support the case of prosecution. In grounds of appeal, he has stated that his statement was not properly appreciated by the Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant could not make out any basis for such averment in grounds of appeal. The trial Court has committed no error of law while acquitting the accused-respondents for want of any evidence against them.

I find no reason to allow the application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., which has no merit. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) May 23, 2018 JUDGE jk Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jitender Kumar 2018.05.24 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh