Dismissed

Jasbir Singh v. Darshan Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Oct 2012CRM-A/673/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble JC Jitendra Chauhan dismissed an application for leave to appeal under S. 378(4) CrPC against an acquittal. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment despite discrepancies in dates of occurrence in the impugned judgment and noted the trial court benefited the accused with doubt, considering the applicant the aggressor.

What did the court decide?

The application for grant of leave to appeal is declined. The application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.

Jasbir Singh Vs Darshan Singh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM-A No.673 MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-A No.673 MA of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.10.2012

Jasbir Singh

...Applicant

Versus

Darshan Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.AK Khunger, Advocate for the applicant

¶12

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8.5.2012, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 323, 341, 447, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The brief facts of the case, as narrated in para no.2 of the impugned judgment, are as under:-

¶16

“The complainant-applicant is resident of Kuttiwal Kalan and is an agriculturist. Their land falls on a pahi coming from Maur- Rampura Main road which is being used by the parties to the complaint and it goes to the fields of Ram Lal. There is a deep water course about four feet in breadth which runs between the pahi

¶17

CRM-A No.673 MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

and land of accused on the southern side. Accused irrigate their land from this water course by lifting it through a mechanical process. Earlier there was a dispute between the parties regarding the location of pahi and application qua this dispute was also moved to the police but the compromise was effected. It was agreed that demarcation of pahi would be got conducted from revenue authorities and both the parties will bear equal expenses and party found in possession of excess portion was to deliver the possession. On 12.7.2009, at about 5.00 PM, complainant and his father Darshan Singh were going to their fields to bring green fodder on tractor and uncle of complainant Rajwant Singh was there, who was irrigating paddy crop. As they reached near the fields, they saw that accused party had halted their bull cart in the pahi. Accused were hoeing cotton crop in their fields. They were requested to remove the bull cart from the pahi so that they could move their tractor. However, both the accused exhorted that bull cart would remain halted there. They then tried to remove the bull cart but due to the depth of water course, bull cart slipped into the water course. Both the accused got angry and came near them with their spades and long handles with which they were

¶20

CRM-A No.673 MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

working in the fields. His father called his uncle who was irrigating the paddy crop nearby. Accused then entered their fields with intention to insult them and wrongfully confined them. Accused Jagdish Singh gave blow of spade having long handle on his mouth which hit his lip on the right side. Darshan Singh gave a blow with blunt side of kasia which hit on his abdomn. He raised alarm. Rajwant Singh asked the accused not to beat. Jagdish Singh gave two blows with Kasia on the person of Rajwant Singh, one blow hit on the right ankle and the other blow on the abdomen. Jagdish Singh also gave two blows of Kasia on his father with blunt side, first blow hit him on the right side of his head and other blow hit his left leg and thigh. All the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons threatening with the consequences. Thereafter, they were got medically examined. Police party came to the hospital on 14.7.2009 and recorded his statement but the same was not read over to him. Ultimately, they came to know that no case was registered against the accused. Hence, the complaint move the present complaint.

¶23

On preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the accused were summoned to face the trial. They were charged under Sections 447, 323, 506 of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

¶24

CRM-A No.673 MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

To prove the allegations made in the complaint, the applicant has examined himself as CW3, CW2 Dr.Darshan Kaur, CW4 Rajwant Singh, eye witness and by tendering MLRs of Rajwant Singh and Jasbir Singh, closed his evidence.

¶27

When examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. By tendering some documents, they closed their evidence.

¶28

The learned trial court by giving them benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused as noticed above.

¶29

Hence, the present application for grant of leave to appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant and one Rajwant Singh, eye witness CW4 and Dr.Darshan Kaur, CW2, who medico legally examined the injured goes on to prove that the injuries were caused by the respondent-accused after entering in their fields. He further submits that the learned trial Court lost sight of the fact the accused were aggressors and being influential persons, registered the FIR against the complainant on the basis of self suffered injuries.

¶31

Heard.

¶32

It is a version of the applicant that bull cart of the accused respondent was found in the pahi (kacha passage), which was used by both the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was in exclusive possession of the said Pahi in question. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it emerges that there are material discrepancies with regard to the date of occurrence. As per the testimony of Jasbir Singh

¶33

CRM-A No.673 MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

CW3, the occurrence took place on 7.12.2009, as per the testimony of Rajwant Singh, CW5 occurrence took place on 9.7.2009 and according to Mohinder Singh, the occurrence took place on 12.7.2009. The learned trial Court also referred to FIR No.56 dated 23.7.2009, under Sections 325, 323, 34 of IPC was registered by the accused-respondent against the applicant and other person for causing grievous and simple injuries to Jagdish Singh and Darshan Singh. The complainant-applicant could not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. The respondentrespondent were examined by CW2 Dr.Darshan Kaur. There was unexplained delay of about two months in lodging the complaint.

¶36

There is no force in the argument raised by counsel for the applicant that the accused- respondent party being influential person, after prevailing upon the police was successful in lodging the FIR against the applicant on the self suffered injuries. However, there is no such record or incident noticed by the learned trial Court. As per the site plan Ex.DA, the occurrence took place in the Pahi (kacha passage), whereas complainant has stated that the occurrence took place in the fields. The version of the applicant is that the accused party sustained injuries when the complainant was throwing the bull cart of the accused in the water course. From this it is proved that the complaint party is the aggressor. The delay in lodging the complaint is not explained.

¶37

No other point has been raised by the counsel for the applicant.

¶38

Keeping in view the divergent statements of the complainant with regard to the date of occurrence, place of occurrence and the injuries

¶39

CRM-A No.673 MA of 2012 (O&M) 6

¶40

on the person of the accused not explained, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. As such, the present application for grant of leave to appeal is declined.

¶41

As the main application for grant of leave to appeal has since been declined, therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filing the application is also dismissed.

¶42

3.10.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Jasbir Singh v. Darshan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh v. Darshan Singh

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

Nishan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh &Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shobha Vs State of Haryana

Kultar Singh Vs State of Punjab