Petitioner appealed an acquittal order against accused respondents. The single judge held no ground was made out for re-evaluating evidence and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-A-605-MA-2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-605-MA-2012 (O&M). Date of decision: September 27, 2012.
Kulbir Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.R.S.Aulakh, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.Abhishek Chautala, AAG., Punjab.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is a complainant. He has sought for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 7. The case of the prosecution registered at the instance of petitioner was that the respondents on 21.5.2005, had stolen the electric motor, one cycle and one shaft from the room of the petitioner. The trial Court had convicted the respondents for the offence under Section 380 and 457 IPC but the lower appellate Court on fair appreciation of evidence has acquitted the respondents on the ground that the complainant-petitioner has got personal rivalry against the accused and that no recovery of stolen articles was effected. Besides this there had been delay of two months in lodging of FIR.
...1
CRM-A-605-MA-2012 (O&M)
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements of PW Baaj Singh and PW Jasvir Singh, have been misread by lower appellate Court.
I have gone through the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and I am of the opinion that the acquittal order has been passed on the following grounds: -
(i) That there has been personal enmity and litigation between the accused persons and the complainant;
(ii) That there was unexplained delay of two months in lodging of the FIR;
(iii) That the prosecution witnesses have made unreasonable improvements indicating the falsity of their testimony and that no recovery of any stolen article was effected.
In view of above said reasons having been taken into consideration at the time of passing of order of acquittal, I do not find any ground to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the lower appellate Court.
No ground is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
(M.M.S. BEDI)
September 27, 2012. JUDGE rka
...2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court's order of acquittal should be set aside in light of allegations regarding delay and falsity of prosecution evidence.
Kulbir Singh
The State of Punjab
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
