Dismissed

Pritam Chand v. Bhagwan and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2012CRM-A/468/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench dismissed an application for special leave to appeal against a trial court's acquittal of respondents in a criminal case, upholding the presumption of innocence.

What did the court decide?

Application for special leave to appeal and application for condonation of delay were dismissed.

What the court decided

Pritam Chand Vs Bhagwan and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-468-MA-2012 (O&M)

¶2

Date of Decision: November 16, 2012

Pritam Chand

…Applicant/Appellant

Versus

Bhagwan and others

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶9

Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.

¶10

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.6.2006, at about 10.00 a.m., the applicant-complainant, Pritam Chand, along with his wife, Anita, and Parmal and Munshi Ram, was going to the bus stand of his village from his house. When they reached in front of the flour-mill of Ram Kishan Jangra, the respondents caused him (applicant) injuries by means of lathis, kirpan and iron rod. Parmal, Munshi Ram and Anita tried to save the applicant from the clutches of the accused, but could not succeed. During the course of the beating, someone telephonically informed the police, which reached at the spot and saved the applicant. The applicant and the witnesses apprised the police of the incident, but no action was initiated against the respondents, rather the police pressurised the complainant-applicant to effect a compromise with the respondents. The complainant-applicant was medico-legally examined vide MLR No. RKN/48/2006, dated 11.6.2006, at CHC, Nissing, and thereafter he was referred to the Government Hospital,

¶12

CRM-A-468-MA-2012 (O&M)

¶13

¶14

Karnal, for radiological examination. The police registered FIR No. 105, dated 11.6.2006, under Sections 384, 452 and 506, IPC, against the complainant-applicant.

¶15

Since the police did not take any action against the respondents, therefore, a complaint was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. After recording the preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned for facing the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 342 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC. The pre-charge evidence was led and the respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶16

In after-charge evidence, the complainant-applicant examined Dr. Rakesh Kumar as PW-1, Arjun Dass as PW-3, Anita as PW-4, Parmal Singh as PW-5, whereas the applicant himself appeared as PW-2. After completion of the complainant's evidence, the statements of the respondents-accused were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them. No evidence in defence was led. After hearing the arguments, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, acquitted the respondents and, hence, the present application for grant of special leave to appeal has been filed. The applicant has also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35550 of 2012, to condone the delay of 88 days in filing the application for grant of special leave to appeal. 4. Heard.

¶17

The alleged occurrence had taken place on 11.6.2006, while the complaint was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate on 11.8.2006 i.e. after a delay of two months, without

¶18

CRM-A-468-MA-2012 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

any explanation for such a huge delay. There were severe contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant-applicant, which were going to the root of the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate has discussed the contradictions and omissions in the statements of the complainant's witnesses, therefore, there is no necessity of noticing the same in this order. The complainant-applicant was booked for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 452 and 506, IPC, vide FIR No. 105, dated 11.6.2006 and as a retaliation to the said FIR, a false complaint was presented by the complainant-applicant against the respondents.

¶21

During arguments, learned counsel admitted that the complainant-applicant was held guilty by the learned Trial Court in a case arising out of FIR No. 105, dated 11.6.2006.

¶22

Now it is settled that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by a judgment of acquittal.

¶23

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the present application for grant of special leave to appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶24

As a necessary consequences, the application for condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the application for special leave to appeal, is also dismissed.

¶25

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶26

November 16, 2012 Pkapoor

Pritam Chand v. Bhagwan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Pritam Chand v. Bhagwan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Parmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Aarti Verma Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Majit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Supreem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.