Swaran Singh challenged an appellate judgment allowing accused to escape enhanced punishment for land disputes. The revision was dismissed as the High Court found no merit in interference given the prosecution failed to prove the case.
null
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.
Crl. Revision No.3864 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No.3864 of 2012 Date of decision:08.05.2013
Swaran Singh
... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and ors.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
By way of this revision petition, Swaran Singh, the complainant has challenged the judgment dated 03.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal preferred by the accused/convicts Sharda Singh and others has been allowed and the revision preferred by the complainant Swaran Singh for enhancement of punishment has been dismissed.
Crl. Revision No.3864 of 2012 2
A case was registered by way of FIR No.195 dated 04.12.1999 at Police Station Mallanwala against Sharda Singh and others for an offence punishable under sections 148, 379, 457, 452, 336, 447, 511, 506 read with section 149 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The facts in brief are that Swaran Singh is resident of village Keema Wali and is agriculturist. There was a vacant space measuring 14 marlas belonging to Kala Singh, Karnail Singh and Natha Singh in front of his house. There has been a small boundary wall of the above stated vacant space. Swaran Singh purchased the said space from Kala Singh and others for a sum of Rs.29,400/-. He constructed a Dhaha and Khurli therein for tethering cattle and placed his agricultural implements alongwith fuel etc. there. He also installed a hand pump there.
On 03.12.1999 at about 9.30 PM when he was sleeping at his house, he and his father got up hearing some noise from outside the house. They came to the outer door of their house and saw Sharda Singh and others demolishing the katcha wall between the house of Sharda Singh and above stated land, which was purchased by the complainant. They were throwing the malba in the land belonging to them. Sharda Singh
Crl. Revision No.3864 of 2012 3
was armed with a single barrel 12 bore gun, Balkar Singh and Gurcharan Singh were armed with double barrel 12 bore guns, Sukhwant Singh was armed with double barrel 12 bore gun. Balwant Singh was untethering his cattle. Hearing the noise, Joga Singh son of Kartar Singh came to the spot. The complainant and his father also came forward to prevent them from doing so. At that time, Balkar Singh fired gun shot in the air to overawe them. He also told them that they would be killed if they came forward. Out of fear, they went back. Joga Singh also went to his house. On the next date, the complainant noticed that the aforesaid persons had taken away some wooden planks etc. and they tried to take possession of the vacant land.
On the statement of Swaran Singh, case was registered. Challan on due investigation was presented for trial before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira. The Magistrate after due trial, decided the case vide judgment dated 13.10.2009 and held the accused guilty for an offence under sections 452, 379, 336 and 506 IPC. Various sentences were awarded to the convicts vide separate order of the even date.
The appeal preferred by Sharda Singh and others succeeded with learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur
Crl. Revision No.3864 of 2012 4
vide judgment dated 03.08.2012, which is challenged by way of this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is quite aware of the fact that scope of interference in a revision petition is quite less. He has, however, submitted that there has been misappreciation of evidence at the stage of First Appellate Court and the revision is required to be allowed to rectify the mistake committed by learned First Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment of learned First Appellate Court. I fail to find out any ground to interfere with the same for the following reasons. When a little noise could attract Joga Singh, the firing of gun shot/shots would have attracted the entire village, which did not occur. Joga Singh, himself an eye witness of the occurrence was not examined. Apart from Swaran Singh and his father Jagir Singh , there is no witness of the occurrence. Natha Singh, PW6 is a person to whom the occurrence is narrated by the complainant on the next morning. The conduct of the complainant and his father in slipping back into the house closing the door and taking rest in the house makes the story unnatural. The complainant saw people demolishing the wall and doing other undesirable acts and just on firing of gun shot in
Crl. Revision No.3864 of 2012 5
the air, they slipped inside the house and closed the door. He did not even raise a voice against the acts of the accused nor did anything in the night.
It is a case where not only the conduct of the complainant and his father but also the conduct of the accused does not match with the situation at the spot. They are said to have come to take illegal possession of the vacant land, which the complainant claims to have purchased from Kala Singh and others. Besides demolishing katcha wall and taking away wooden planks, the accused are not said to have taken possession of the said land during the night. There was no resistance from the side of the complainant and in such a situation they could have enclosed the said land with a boundary wall during the night. They are said to have just gone away with the wooden planks after demolishing the wall.
The wall as per the complainant was also small. It did not have any door and, therefore, it was not a building qualifying to attract section 452 IPC.
All these circumstances have been appropriately taken into consideration by learned First Appellate Court and has rightly found the prosecution to have failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In these
Crl. Revision No.3864 of 2012 6
circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.
The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.
May 08, 2013 dinesh
( Vijender Singh Malik ) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to rectify a misappreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court and enhance the punishment.
Whether the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in the conduct of the accused and complainant.
Whether a small vacant land without a door qualifies as a building under Section 452 IPC.
Swaran Singh
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
