In an article 226/378 CrPC matter (state mislabelled), the High Court declined to grant leave to appeal to the State in an acquittal case. The Court held the appellate court’s evaluation of witness contradictions was neither illegal nor perverse and refrained from interfering.
No leave to appeal granted to the State under Section 378(4) CrPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA-M No.211 MA of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-M No.211 MA of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:24.8.2012
Usha Rani
...Applicant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.PS Brar, Advocate for the applicant.
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
The present petition, under section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed against the judgment dated 30.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeals filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 11 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot, were allowed and the said respondents were acquitted of the charges in FIR No.18 dated 15.2.2003, registered under Sections 148, 452/149, 323/149, 427/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.2.2003, at about 1 PM, Ushan Rani and her both sons on hearing a great noise in the street, came out of her house. They tried to stop the accused, who were armed with weapons. Accused Mool Chand gave a blow with handle of spade hitting on her back towards right side. The sons of the complainant Usha Rani tried to
CRA-M No.211 MA of 2012 (O&M) 2
rescue her and raised a noise, but the accused were many in number and they did not hear them. All the accused gave dasta blows to the complainant. The accused started demolishing the roof of the house. In the meantime, some persons came there and the accused persons ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. The injured were rushed to Civil Hospital, Jaitu. On receipt of the ruqa, ASI Jagdish Lal alongwith some other police official visited the Civil Hospital, Jaitu and after getting the opinion of the doctor, he recorded the statement of injured Usha Rani. MLRs of Usha Rani and Vidya were received by the police. FIR under Sections 452, 323, 427, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, the challan was presented.
The accused were charged under Sections 452, 427, 323, 148/149 of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and closed its evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence and false implication.
After analysing the evidence led by the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the said respondents and acquitted Sarbati Devi, Jagdish, Harbans, Jagjiwan Ram, Partap Singh, Dr.Kewal Krishan.
Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the convicted persons preferred appeals, which were allowed and they were acquitted of the
CRA-M No.211 MA of 2012 (O&M)
3
charges.
The State has filed this petition under section 378 (4) Cr.P.C, seeking leave to appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents. The prosecution case is duly proved. However, the learned appellate Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents. The accused persons were caused injuries to the complainant and Vidya. The learned appellate Court has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the complainant. She received as many as 11 injuries on her person.
Heard and perused.
The learned Appellate Court has noticed that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW1 Usha Rani complainant, PW2 Jatinder Kumar and PW4 Inder Raj and therefore, the version given by the complainant has been held to be doubtful. Paras 20 and 21 of the judgment of Appellate Court are reproduced as under:-
“20. The statements of PW1 Usha Rani, PW2 Jatinder Kumar and PW4 Inder Raj suffers from discrepancies. PW4 Inder Raj stated that the accused were armed with hammers, few of them were armed with spades and they were armed with apparatus for demolishing the roofs. It is not stated by PW1 Usha Rani and PW2 Jatinder Kumar. PW1 Usha Rani in her statement before the Court stated that one or two of the accused were armed with guns and she attributed only handle of spade to the accused. Presence of PW1 Inder Raj at the spot is falsified because he stated that sons of Usha Rani were not present there whereas PW1 Usha Rani and PW2
CRA-M No.211 MA of 2012 (O&M)
4
Jatinder Kumar are stating about their presence at the time of alleged occurrence. PW4 Inder Raj cannot be termed as eye witness of the occurrence because when subjected to cross-examination he stated that he reached on the spot after 15 minutes of the occurrence. PW4 Inder Raj also stated that Usha Rani and her husband Lachhman Dass and Sukh Ram were living in the said house and this fact is falsified from the judgments of the civil cases referred above. He also admitted as correct that from his shop the house of Usha Rani is not visible. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination he can be termed as eye witness of the occurrence.
PW2 Jatinder Kumar when subjected to cross-examination stated that he did not go to admit his mother in the hospital. His brother Ashok Kumar also remained in the house. Thus had the accused caused the alleged occurrence and inflicted injuries on the person of mother of PW2 Jatinder Kumar, either of the brother i.e. sons of Usha Rani must have taken her to the hospital. He also stated that the police never visited the spot whereas PW4 Ind Raj stated that the police reached on the spot after one hour. Thus failure of Lachhman Dass husband of PW1 Usha Rani to appear in the Court and depose about their possession over the house where the alleged occurrence took place and from the judgments of the civil cases referred above falsified the alleged occurrence. Thus neither the alleged occurrence took place nor Usha Rani suffered injuries.”
The learned Appellate Court has rightly evaluated the evidence
produced by the complainant and, the findings recorded do not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. The view taken by the learned Appellate Court is correct and even if other view is possible, this Court will
CRA-M No.211 MA of 2012 (O&M)
5
hesitate to take another possible view.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the view taken by the learned Appellate Court, in judgment dated 30.9.2011. No ground is made out to grant leave to appeal. Declined.
24.8.2012 gsv
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant leave to the State under Section 378(4) CrPC to appeal against an acquittal by the High Court.
Whether the appellate court's decision to acquit the respondents due to discrepancies in witness statements warrants interference by the High Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Usha Rani
State of Punjab and others
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
