Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Fraud and Illegal Confinement Case, Finds No Evidence After Complainant’s Death
Case Name: Rachhpal Singh v. Balbir Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CRR No. 1855 of 2014 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed against concurrent acquittals in a case alleging cheating, criminal conspiracy, and wrongful confinement, holding that no interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction where findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. Justice Inderjit Singh ruled that the prosecution’s case collapsed upon the death of the complainant, Surjit Kaur, the only material witness, and that there was no corroborative evidence to prove illegal confinement or fraudulent sale of land. The Court emphasized that a revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate forum and may intervene only where findings are perverse or contrary to law, which was not the case here.
Summary: The FIR No. 66 dated April 24, 2008, registered at Police Station Garhshankar under Sections 342, 420, and 120-B IPC, alleged that the complainant Surjit Kaur, a widow owning 3 acres of land, was deceived by Balbir Singh, Vidya, and Vijay Kumari, who posed as travel agents and promised to send her to Canada for ₹30 lakh. Unable to pay cash, she was induced to sign documents leading to the execution of a sale deed of her land without consideration. She was allegedly confined for six months and later escaped, after which she filed a complaint claiming fraud and threats. During the trial, Surjit Kaur passed away and could not be examined.
The trial court acquitted all accused, finding that the sole investigating witness, SI Lehmbar Singh (PW-3), admitted that he had not verified the complainant’s confinement or recorded any local statements. The statement of PW-5 Joginder Singh Lambardar was also disbelieved, as PW-1 Bhupinder Singh, Registration Clerk, confirmed that the Sub-Registrar had registered the sale deed only after full payment verification. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hoshiarpur, upheld the acquittal, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable and uncorroborated.
Justice Inderjit Singh concurred with both courts, holding that the revision petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or omission of material evidence. The Court reiterated that revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC are narrow and cannot be invoked to re-examine findings of fact absent gross miscarriage of justice.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the acquittal of all accused. It held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on sound reasoning and that no legal infirmity or misreading of evidence justified interference.