- (1.) The instant application has been under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, whereby respondent No.2 Sukhdev Singh has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per prosecution are that residents of Village Beer Talab Basti No.5 moved an application dated 16.04.1999 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda stating that Kartar Singh and Sukhdev Singh after receiving amounts from the applicants i.e. Kashmir Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jagtar Singh, Baghel singh, Amarjit Singh, Inderjit Singh, Shankar, Maloka, Sukhdev Kaur, Punjab Kaur, Satwant Kaur residents of beer Tala, Basti No.5, Bathinda, executed agreements of sale and handed over possession of the land detailed in the agreements. The applicants raised construction of their houses and started residing therein. But, later on the Sarpanch of the village told that the said land belongs to the Panchayat. On this, the aforesaid applicants moved an application to SSP and Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, regarding which enquiry was marked to ASI Kuldeep Singh. Thereafter, statements of all the applicants were recorded. After investigation the case, DSP (D) sent his report to SSP, Bathinda, who obtained opinion of ADA (Legal) and on the recommendation of ADA (Legal), a case under Sections 420, 406 IPC was registered against the accused persons. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused in the Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 Jagsir Singh, PW2 Baghel Singh, PW3 Inderjit Singh, PW4 Jagtar Singh, PW5 Jarnail singh, PW6 Rajinder Kumar Gupta, PW7 Amarjit Singh, PW8 Maluka Singh, PW9 Kashmir Singh, PW10 Shankar and PW11 Sukhdev Singh and thereafter when the prosecution failed to conclude its evidence despite availing sufficient number of opportunities, evidence of prosecution was closed by order of Court.;