Dismissed

Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh v. Ranjit Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2012CRM-A/454/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC. The applicant challenged the acquittal of respondents in a criminal trial involving a will and family settlement, arguing the trial court erred by relying on civil judgments. The court held the complainant failed to prove key documents'

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to file an appeal was dismissed; the acquittal of the respondents remains valid.

Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh Vs Ranjit Singh etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRM-A No.454-MA of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-A No.454-MA of 2010

¶4

Date of decision : 27.07.2012

¶5

Ram Sahai alias Ram Singh

¶6

...Applicant-appellant

Versus

Ranjit Singh etc.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

¶12

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶13

The applicant has preferred this application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal. Heard.

¶14

The grouse of the applicant-appellant is that the learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, has acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in a civil dispute between the parties, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the

¶15

CRM-A No.454-MA of 2010

¶16

learned First Appellate Court (Annexure P-1) and by this Court (Annexure P-2), regarding the validity of the Will dated 25.09.1981 (Ex.P2), were set aside. It has been argued that the learned trial Court failed to notice that the Hon'ble Apex Court did not give any finding with respect to the forging of the alleged family settlement dated 06.02.1985 (Ex.P1).

¶17

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the applicant-complainant failed to discharge his onus to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as is required in the criminal proceedings. The complainant could not prove the execution of Will, Ex.P2, dated 25.09.1981, by Ram Baksh Singh in favour of the complainant by examining any of its attesting witnesses. Even the sale deed dated 27.11.1981 is not proved on record. The only testimony of the complainant and the document expert are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. The view taken by the learned trial Court is best and possible view and no other view could be taken

¶18

Hence, no ground for grant of leave to file an appeal is

¶19

made out.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶22

27.07.2012 atulsethi

Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh v. Ranjit Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh v. Ranjit Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tara Chand Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Khurana Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ajmer Vs State of Haryana

Ram Parsad Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Anuradha and Another Vs State of Haryana