This order condones the delay in filing a petition and dismisses it. The petitioners sought remedy after the trial court acquitted the respondents, citing injuries sustained by the petitioner and lack of material witness statements to justify re-appreciation of evidence.
The petition was dismissed after condoning the delay.
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-861-MA of 2011 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM A-861-MA of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 11, 2012
Kishan Pal
…..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing of the petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
The respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court. The case of the prosecution was registered at the instance of Abhishek Aggarwal but the respondents had been booked in a cross-version at the instance of Kishan Pal.
The trial Court had disbelieved injured Kishan Pal as well as Harnam Singh PW2. the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that Harnam
CRM A-861-MA of 2011 (O&M) [2]
Singh, PW2 was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He had only seen Kishan Pal coming out of the house of Jawahar Lal Aggarwal- respondent No.2 alongwith his companions. The said companions, namely, Gogi, Sonu and Sukha were not produced before the trial Court. The allegations of the prosecution were vague regarding the weapon. Giving the benefit of doubt to the respondents, the trial Court has opted to acquit them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the injuries of Kishan Pal on his body showing incised wounds, contusions and abrasions.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the judgment of the Court. The statements of complainant Kishan Pal PW1 and other witnesses stand disbelieved on appreciation of evidence. In view of the statements of material witnesses Gogi, Sonu and Sukha having not been recorded, the trial Court seems to have rightly given the benefit of doubt to respondents No.3, 4 and 5. No ground is made out for re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court.
Dismissed.
December 11 , 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the petition should be condoned.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of respondents by re-appreciating evidence.
Kishan Pal
State of Punjab
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
