Dismissed

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2012CRM-A/393/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns a criminal appeal filed by Ranjit Singh against the acquittal of accused persons in a case involving damages to crops and insult. The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, emphasizing that in the absence of manifest legal infirmity or grave miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction against acquittal cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence.

What did the court decide?

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on merits, with no need for a separate order condoning the delay.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM-A 393-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM -A 393-MA of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2012

Ranjit Singh

... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

1. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

¶15

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶16

The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted from the charges framed against them.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 17 dated 13.01.1999, under Sections 427/447 IPC, Police Station Sadar Patiala had been registered against accused respondent Nos. 2 to 8 on the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant on the allegations that the appellant had

¶18

CRM-A 393-MA of 2012 (O&M) 2

¶19

taken land measuring 2-1/2 acres, situated in village Lang from Bhajan Singh son of Jagir Singh on Chakota in the year 1998-99 @ Rs.8000/- per acre. The appellant had sown the creepers of ash gourd in the fields. It is alleged in the complaint that on 18.06.1998, the accused persons – respondent Nos. 2 to 8 including Jagir Singh (deceased) had badly damaged the creepers of ash gourds while driving tractors and with the help of using Soties and Gandasies. When they were restrained and stopped for not doing the same, then they abused the complainant and his son and threatened them with direct consequences. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 19.06.1998, the complainant reported the matter to the police station of P.S. Sadar Patiala, but the police had not taken any action against them. On the written complaint, DSP Rural gave his opinion that prima facie offences under Sections 427 and 447 IPC are made out against the accused persons. On the basis of this, formal FIR was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶20

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 Dr. Ranjit Singh as PW1, Amar Gir as PW2, Karam Singh as PW3, Surjit Singh as PW4 and Uttam Singh as PW5 and closed its evidence.

¶21

Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded innocence.

¶22

The learned Trial Court, after trial, acquitted all the accused

¶23

CRM-A 393-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

vide judgment dated 22.09.2009. Hence, this application for grant of leave to appeal.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment also.

¶27

The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-

¶28

“ 23. It is also pointed out that in defence the accused, has succeeded to prove Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. Ex.D1 is the case filed against accused Hardev Singh, which was decided on 5.11.2001, wherein it is categorically mentioned that occurrence witnessed by Amar Gir and these also shows that the witnesses cited of occurrence are stock witness. Ex.D2 is the case filed against Ranjit Singh and Raghbir Singh, and these all shows that these are the habitual witnesses and are stock witnesses and prepared by the complainant to connect the accused with the crime. Ld. Counsel further argued that in these circumstances case of the prosecution is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and they are liable to be acquired.

¶29

24. After hearing the arguments of ld. APP for the State and ld. Defence counsel and after going through the record on file very carefully, with their able assistance, I am of the considered opinion that admittedly the pendency of case shows the reason or motive to plant a false case against the accused persons. I am fully convinced with the contention of ld. Defence counsel. Nothing fruitful comes from the cross examination of the witnesses which supports the prosecution version to prove the fact that present

¶30

CRM-A 393-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶31

¶32

accused committed any offence.”

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment either on facts or on law which would call for interference by this Court.

¶34

The scope of revision against acquittal has been well discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias R.P. Singh and others versus State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 61 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different than the one arrived at by the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. It is further observed that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and it should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot loose sight of the fact that when a re-trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused, and that itself must caution the court exercising revisional jurisdiction.

¶35

Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand and

¶36

CRM-A 393-MA of 2012 (O&M) 5

¶37

following the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra), the appellant has no case. As such, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶38

Since I have decided the application for leave to appeal on merits, no separate order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay of 895 days in filing the appeal.

¶39

September 12, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Manak Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab

Bhagwan Dass Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Naresh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Paramjit Singh Vs Baljit Dass

Subhash Chand Sharma Vs State of Haryana etc.

Samir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another