The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a criminal appeal filed against an acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to bring evidence connecting respondent No. 2 to phone calls during the occurrence or respondent No. 3 to harboring accused persons, justifying the trial court's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-962-DB of 2014 Date of Decision : March 10, 2015
Harish Bhardwaj
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present : Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellant.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Learned counsel fore the appellant has submitted that respondent No.2 had taken active part in the commission of crime as she was present at the time of occurrence and had made phone calls to other accused to reach there. It is also submitted that respondent No.3 was also present at the time of occurrence and had harboured his co-accused.
Criminal Appeal No. D-962-DB of 2014 -2-
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the prosecution could not bring any evidence on record to show that it was respondent No.2, who had made phone calls to any of her co-accused. Merely because PW-3 Sugriv had stated that he saw her (respondent No.2) making phone calls while sitting in the car is not sufficient to connect her with the crime as it has not come on record that to whom she had made any such calls. As regards respondent No.3, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that he was present at the place of occurrence or had harboured any of the accused involved in the case.
In view of the above, no fault can2 be found with the impugned judgement passed by the trial Court to the extent of acquitting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges against them.
Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and, therefore,
dismissed.
(T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN) JUDGE
March 10, 2015 pds.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge's acquittal of respondents No. 2 and 3 given the absence of evidence proving their presence at the occurrence or the making o
Harish Bhardwaj
State of Haryana
T.P.S. Mann
Mahavir S. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
