HARMAIL KAUR vs STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Complainant Harmail Kaur (PW3) aggrieved by the acquittal

of respondents No.2 to 26 has preferred the present application seeking

special leave to file an appeal.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 8.7.2012, when PW3

Harmail Kaur came out of the residence of her parents, it was attacked by

accused persons who were armed with kappa, sticks, etc. Accused Piara

Singh opened fire from the rifle with an intention to kill her, but none was

injured. The entire household articles and cash of Rs. 1,95.000/- and gold

weighing about 13 tollas were taken away by the accused. Having

trespassed upon the house of her father, they took away all the above

articles on a tractor after wielding threat to the complainant of dire

consequences.

On the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined.

The trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record,

passed a verdict of acquittal.

We perused the entire records in the background of the

submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant.

It is the admitted case of PW3 Harmail Kaur that accused

trespassed upon the house of her father Jeet Singh who has also been

arrayed as one of the accused by her. In our considered view, it was only

Jeet Singh who should have lodged a complaint if at all the accused had

trespassed upon his house and taken away all the valuable articles

described in the complaint. It is the admission of PW3 that she was in fact

annoyed with her father as he had sold his estate to accused Harbans Kaur

without giving any share to her. It is found that on account of such a

grievance, she had filed the complaint against the accused including her

father, as though he also joined hands with the co-accused in making the

trespass upon the property of himself.

The revenue records brought by PW5 Daulat Ram, Patwari

establish that it was only accused Jeet Ram, the father of the complainant

who was the original owner of the property. He sold away his property to

accused Harbans Kaur. Nobody had sustained injury in the occurrence.

The articles recovered are easily available in the market as per the

admission made by PW2 ASI Atma Singh. Therefore, it is found that the

applicant has arrayed as many as 25 persons including her father as

accused when nobody had sustained any injury.

The trial Court has rightly evaluated the evidence on record

and come to a proper conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the

charges framed as against the accused. Therefore, special leave sought for

is declined and consequently, the application is dismissed.