Om Parkash vs State of Punjab and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—Challenge is to the judgment dated 2.3.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whereby Jaswinder Singh has been acquitted. Brief facts of the case as per para 2 of the judgment are as under:-

Om Parkash complainant, resident of village Bhawanipur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala has mortgaged his 19K-4Ms of land with Cooperative Bank, Surakhpur and he has got a limit against the said land. He has taken a loan and he was to pay an amount of Rs. 4,69,738/- to the said bank. This complainant Om Parkash and Jaswinder Singh accused were close to each other and used to drink together. The bank authorities were pressing Om Parkash to give back the said loan amount, but, he has no money with him. He told this story to his friend Jaswinder Singh, accused, who agreed to pay the said amount to him to be paid in the said bank. On his request, Om Parkash agreed to sell his said land to him in lieu of the same. Then, on 5.3.2010 Om Parkash agreed to sell his said land to Jaswinder Singh at the rate of Rs. 6,09,000/- per acre and he paid Rs. 7,00,000/- as earnest money. On the next day, Jaswinder Singh accused also gave him Rs. 4,69,738/-, which he deposited in the said bank, which he was to pay as loan amount.

After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and the accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 420/328 IPC.

The prosecution examined PW 1 Om Parkash, complainant, who deposed that Jaswinder Singh accused after administering him some poisonous substance by mixing the same in the alcohol got a sale deed executed dated 15.3.2010 from him. PW 2 Surinder Singh is the deed writer, who has scribed the agreement to sell dated 5.3.2010 Ex. PD and he has also scribed the sale deed dated 15.3.2010 Ex. PE. He has brought the relevant registers and proved the entries of these documents in his register. PW 3 Chaman Lal is the attesting witness who has attested the said sale deed dated 15.3.2010 Ex. PE. PW 4 Bhupinder Singh, Manager, Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank has deposed the Om Parkash has mortgaged his 19K-4M of land with his bank where he was working as Manager and he has got limit against the said loan. He was to give back the loan of Rs. 4,69,738/- which he has deposited on 6.3.2010. PW 5 ASI Pargat Singh is the investigating officer of the case and has proved the FIR Ex. PK and has further deposed that he has recorded the statements of all the Pws connected with the case. PW 6 Labh Singh is the son of Om Parkash, who has deposed that his father Om Parkash has told him that Jaswinder Singh accused has got executed a sale deed from him with respect to his land after administering him some poisonous substance by mixing the same in alcohol. PW 7 Daljit Kaur has also deposed that her husband Om Parkash has told him that Jaswinder Singh accused has got executed a sale deed from him with respect to his land after administering him some poisonous substance by mixing the same in alcohol.

The accused has been acquitted primarily on two grounds i.e. Whether the sale deed was executed by the complainant in a drunken condition. The trial Court has examined PW 2 Surinder Singh who admitted that the sale deed dated 15.3.2010 was executed by Om Parkash when he was not under the influence of liquor. He received Rs. 7 lacs at the time of agreement to sell dated 5.3.2010 Ex. PD. Attesting witness of the sale deed Chaman Lal PW 3 has admitted that at the time of execution of the sale deed Om Parkash was not under the influence of liquor. The deposition given by PW 6 Labh Singh son of Om Parkash and PW 7 Daljit Kaur wife of Om Parkash to the effect that accused had given some poisonous substance at the time of sale deed has been discarded on the ground that they were not present at the time of agreement to sell dated 5.3.2010. There is no reason to discard the testimony of the attesting witness Chaman Lal PW 3 and Deed Writer Surinder Singh PW 2. Even if the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the complaint qua the agreement to sell dated 5.3.2010 was registered after 15 days, on merits, there is no evidence which has been led by the appellant to prove that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are made against Jaswinder Singh. Complainant has filed a civil suit for setting aside the sale deed dated 15.3.2010 which is pending consideration.

Since in the present appeal the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out, the order dated 2.3.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, acquitting the accused Jaswinder Singh does not require any interference. The appeal is dismissed.