Dismissed

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2012CRM-A/460/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a State warrant of appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against an acquittal in an offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt and held that interference is only warranted if the judgment is perverse.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal was denied; the application for condonation of delay was disposed of as academic.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1 -

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. A-460-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. A-460-MA of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.11.2012.

Mukhtiar Singh

.......Applicant

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ****

¶11

SABINA, J.

¶12

Respondent had faced trial in complaint filed by the appellant-applicant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court vide the impugned judgment 6.8.2010 acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leave to appeal by the complainant.

¶13

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the instant application deserves dismissal.

¶14

The case of the complainant, in brief, was that he had purchased a battery from the respondents on 11.12.2007. However, the battery did not operate properly. Due to this reason, complainant approached the respondents but they kept on deferring the matter on one pretext or the other. On 2.1.2008, all the respondents went to the house of the complainant at about 12.30 P.M. and respondent Ravinder Kumar refused to change the battery. Many persons gathered in the street. Complainant again

¶15

-2 -

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. A-460-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

requested the respondents to change the battery. Ravinder Kumarrespondent got enraged and uttered derogatory words against the complainant relating to his caste. Ravinder Kumar slapped the complainant. Respondent Ashu raised a lalkara and uttered derogatory words against the caste of the complainant. Rashu pushed and threw the complainant on the ground and kicked him and uttered derogatory words against his caste. Sukhdev Singh @ Kala threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

¶18

In support of his case, complainant-applicant led his evidence. Respondents examined DW-1 Chet Ram in their defence. The trial court, while acquitting the respondents, held that the applicant-complainant had failed to prove on record his original caste certificate. Further it was observed that the complaint in question had been filed at the instance of Lakhwinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate as ejectment petition filed by Lakhwinder Singh Sandhu and his father against accused Ravinder Kumar had been dismissed in default. It was further observed that the complainant had failed to establish the defect in the battery alleged to have been purchased by him from the respondents.

¶19

It is a case where, in view of evidence on record, it can safely be said that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused. Even in cases where two views are possible, after acquittal, in appeal benefit will go to the accused.

¶20

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.

¶21

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v.

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. A-460-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶23

-3 -

¶24

Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:

¶25

“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.”

¶26

To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the

¶27

Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.

¶28

Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479 , the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

¶29

“8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction

¶30

Crl. Misc. No. A-460-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶31

-4 -

¶32

or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. 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”

¶33

The reasons given by the trial court, while acquitting the

¶34

Crl. Misc. No. A-460-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶35

-5 -

¶36

respondents of the charges framed against them are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence on record by the trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court.

¶37

No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶38

Since the application is dismissed on merits, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application is rendered merely academic and is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶40

November 05, 2012 Gurpreet

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Barjinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Surjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sarika Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tipinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.