Dismissed

Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2012CRM-A/268/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special leave petition under Section 378(4) CrPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered an appeal against an order of acquittal by the session court. The court dismissed the application, finding no compelling reasons or perversity in the trial court's judgment and upheld the benefit of doubt given to the private respondents regarding specific charges.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to file appeal against acquittal dismissed.

Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶3

Date of Decision: 19.7.2012

Pal Singh

... Applicant

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.

¶10

Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶12

The private respondents were made to face trial for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 506, 452 and 436 IPC. After trial, they were acquitted so far as commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 436 IPC is concerned, however, qua other offences, they were convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 18.1.2012.

¶13

This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the above judgment, to the extent of acquitting the private respondents of the charges framed against them under Sections 148 and 436 IPC.

¶14

The above respondents were put to face trial on a statement made by Pal Singh (PW.1) which led to the registration of an FIR on 8.9.2008 against the private respondents. The trial Judge has noted the

¶15

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶16

¶17

following facts from his statement:-

¶18

“that on 07.09.2008, when he was present at his resident at village Lohani, Rajiv son of Niranjan, Pawan son of Satbir and Pardeep son of Daya Nand, resident of village Lohani while driving a motor cycle, the number of which he did not know, came in the street at about 6.30 p.m., when the complainant asked them to drive it slowly, to which they replied that they were driving it slowly and they went to the residence of Rajender, Sarpanch of the village. Sarpanch Rajender asked him on telephone as to why he had stopped the children, to which, he replied that he had not stopped them rather he had only asked them to drive the motorcycle slowly. Sarpanch Rajender then threatened that it was night and he would be seen in the morning. After the talk, he came inside his residence where his brothers Rajender alias Rai Chand and Partap were taking meals alongwith children and saw that 2025 young boys alongwith Sarpanch Rajender of the village, after breaking the gate and wall, entered his house and started throwing bricks and stones. They firstly entered the Baithak (drawing room) and broke belongings and windowpanes. The bricks and stones were also hit on his left eye, neck, left side of stomach. Partap also received the brick blow in his head. Rajender @ Rai Chand received the injury by brick on his nose. The complainant party saving themselves entered the chowk inside the house. The

¶19

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶20

¶21

assailants followed them. They were Sarpanch Rajender son of Om Parkash, Kaku son of Rajender, Rajiv son of Niranjan, Manoj son of Satbir, Pawan son of Satbir, Pankaj son of Daya Kishan, Ramesh son of Rohtash, Rajesh and Rajiv sons of Birbal, Pardeep son of Daya Kishan, Sunil and Sanjay sons of Bishamber, Bishamber son of Ram Swaroop, Satbir, Anand, Roshan, Hari Chand sons of Radhey Shyam, Om Parkash son of Kishori, Jitu son of Om Parkash, Satish son of Het Ram, Vicky son of Bajrang, Bajrang son of Suresh, Manohar, Ved Parkas sons of Dhanna Ram, Gajender son of Manohar and 15-20 more persons who could not be recognized due to darkness. They set their belongings, a motorcycle make “Bajaj” bearing registration No. HR-21B/9058, a bicycle, cot and a colour TV Mark “Samsung”, on fire. They (complainant party) hide themselves inside the rooms in their house after closing the doors. Therefore, the assailants broke the belongings in the house of his brother Partap and threw bricks and stones. While leaving the spot, they stated that they (complainant party) had been saved and they had taught them a lesson for stopping their motorcycle and for taking away their daughter Sanju and made threat to kill his entire family in case such an act was repeated again and stated that their family would not be allowed to live in the village. The entire occurrence was witnessed by the neighbours and his son Harish who got them admitted to General Hospital,

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶23

¶24

Bhiwani, for treatment.”

¶25

After recording the above FIR, the Investigating OfficerAssistant Sub Inspector Ram Niwas (PW.2) went to the place of occurrence and recorded statement of the witnesses, prepared a rough site plan with correct marginal notes and on completing other formalities, final report was put in Court. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused, as per norms. Their case was committed to the competent Court for trial. They were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶26

The prosecution produced ten witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the private respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating evidence appearing on record was put to them which they denied, claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. They also led evidence in defence.

¶27

The trial Judge, on appraisal of evidence, acquitted them so far as offence under Sections 148 and 436 IPC is concerned. Qua other offences, they were convicted and sentenced vide order dated 18.1.2012.

¶28

After hearing counsel for the applicant, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the trial Judge. When giving benefit of doubt to the private respondents regarding commission of offence under Sections 148 and 436 IPC, it was observed as under:-

¶29

“44. Coming to an offence punishable under Section 436

¶30

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶31

¶32

read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused under this section, prosecution was required to prove that accused being members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly they had committed mischief by setting on fire the house/property i.e. motorcycle, T.V., cots etc. belonging to Pal Singh. The argument of learned Public Prosecutor that the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out merely by setting on fire the belongings of the complainant have failed to convince the Court and on this score this Court is satisfied with the arguments advanced by learned defence counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the accused. However, sufficient material is available on the file to hold that the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the accused.”

¶33

The opinion expressed above is perfectly justified. Counsel for the applicant has failed to show any lacuna in the judgment & order under challenge and misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court has also not been indicated. The trial Court has analyzed the entire

¶34

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶35

¶36

evidence in a threadbare manner. After discussing oral as well as documentary evidence, opinion has rightly been formed to acquit the private respondents so far as commission of an offence under Sections 148 & 436 IPC is concerned. The view taken by the trial Court appears to be justified and as per evidence on record.

¶37

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748 , held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

¶38

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775 , while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-

¶39

“ We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”

¶40

Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.

¶41

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶42

¶43

In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479 , decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

¶44

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.”

¶45

Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶46

“7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.

¶47

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶48

¶49

8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for.”

¶50

Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-

¶51

“10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and

¶52

Criminal Misc. No. A-268-MA of 2012

¶53

¶54

the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has

¶55

to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.”

¶56

Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any error in passing the judgment on the part of the trial Court which may necessitate interference by this Court.

¶57

Dismissed.

¶58

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶59

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶60

July 19, 2012 “DK”

Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mohinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Des Raj Mall & Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Navdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

State of Punjab Vs Harbhajan Singh(Died) through Its Lrs & Others

Dalbir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.