Keeping in view the facts of the present case, notice of motion was issued. Service was duly effected upon respondent No. 2/complainant. Reply has been filed by the State of Punjab – respondent No. 1. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 in spite of service. During the trial against Avtar Singh, respondent No. 2 did not come forward to complete his evidence after his examination-in-chief was partly recorded by the trial Court on 18.04.2007 despite issuance of numerous processes from time to time. It shall further be apposite to set out that the only other witness to the alleged occurrence, namely , Raghuvinder Pal Singh failed to even identify any of the accused during his cross examination. Further still, despite availing numerous opportunities during the trial for about five years, the prosecution had failed to conclude its evidence in the case. As such, the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2008, closed the evidence of the prosecution and discharged the coaccused Avtar Singh by passing a detailed speaking and well reasoned order.
