RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK,J. - (1.) THE applicant, by way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., for grant of leave to file appeal, against the judgment of acquittal dated 1.12.2011 passed by the learned trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is satisfied that sufficient reasons have been given in the application, explaining the delay of 6 days.
(2.) IN view of the above, the present application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. The delay of 6 days is condoned. The instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), has been filed by the applicant, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 1.12.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby accused/respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. In order to avoid repetition and also for the sake of brevity, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts noted by the learned trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment and the same read as under:- "The prosecution in a report submitted in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code) claims that complainant Surjit Singh of village Gurne Kalan was married to the prosecutrix in the year 1996. Of the wedlock, a son named Rajbir Singh (who is aged now 14 years) and a daughter named Lovepreet Kaur, (aged about 9 years) are born. Gurpiar Singh (accused herein) has also been residing in village Gurne Kalan, the place of his maternal grand father Mohinder Singh and has been studying in a school at Bakhora Kalan before being recruited in Indian Army and stays at Gurne Kalan whenever on leave. Around the period during which the occurrence occurred, accused was on leave and had come to village Gurne Kalan. On 18.8.2010 complainant went to Lehra in connection with domestic work. Complainant's mother, Jaswant Kaur was away to her parental house in village Katu Waliya while his father had gone to the fields. When complainant returned home in the evening, at or around 04 o' clock, he found that his wife i.e. the prosecutrix and daughter Lovepreet Kaur were missing from the house. He vainly searched for the prosecutrix and his daughter and inquiries assured him that the prosecutrix and daughter Lovepreet Kaur were abducted by the accused by playing inducement with a mala fide intention. Accompanied by Satgur Singh, Member Panchayat of village Gurne Kalan, complainant was going to Police Post, Chotian to report the matter but on the way, at Bus Stand, Chotian, came across ASI Baljit Singh (here-in-after referred to as Investigating Officer) along with his police party, and suffered before him a statement narrating the entire chain of events. Investigating Officer reduced the statement into writing, read it over to the complainant who, to signify its correctness, put his signatures on the foot of the statement." Investigation was carried out. The investigating officer inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. The prosecutrix and her daughter were brought back from village Dharsu in Haryana to Moonak. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted. The accused was apprehended and an application was moved before SDJM Moonak for recording the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After conclusion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented to the learned Illaqa Magistrate. The relevant documents were supplied to the accused. The offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, having been found to be exclusively triable by the court of session, the case was committed for trial to the court of session. Finding a prima-facie case made out against the accused, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
(3.) WITH a view to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses, besides tendering the relevant documents in evidence. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were separately recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused. He alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court held that prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused-respondent Gurpiar Singh was acquitted of the charge framed against him, vide impugned judgment dated 1.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal dated . 1.12.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, the applicant has approached this Court by way of instant application. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.;