Dismissed

Prem Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2014CRM-A/1221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents directed by the trial court. The court held that the trial court rightly acquitted the respondents due to delay in filing the complaint, failure to examine key witnesses and lack of material evidence. No ground was made out to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal against acquittal is dismissed; maintain order of acquittal.

Prem Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1 -

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014 Date of Decision: 25.11.2014.

Prem Singh

.......Applicant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the applicant. ****

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

Respondents No. 2 to 7 had faced trial in a complaint filed by the applicant under Section 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short).

¶14

Case of the applicant-complainant was that on 17.9.2006, he had gone to the funeral ground for taking a bath and he noticed that accused Bhuri, Kallu, Girraj, Madan and Sunder were abusing his brother Raju. When the applicant objected, accused got angry and accused Bhuri gave a lathi blow on the face of the applicant whereas accused Sunder gave a lathi blow on the left knee of the applicant. Madan gave punch and kick blows to the applicant and his brother Raju. Kallu gave an iron punch on the teeth of the applicant. Accused Girraj gave a lathi blow on the right ankle and jaw of the applicant. Accused Ramesh gave a lathi blow on the forehead of the complainant. All the accused gave kick blows and punches to Raju. On an alarm raised by the applicant, Kallu and Daya Ram rescued them. DDR No. 3 was recorded in Police Station Hodal on 17.9.2006 itself. X-ray examination of the complainant was conducted on 18.9.2006.

¶15

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

-2 -

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014

¶18

Applicant led his preliminary evidence in support of his case. Thereafter, accused was ordered to be summoned to face trial.

¶19

Applicant led his pre-charge evidence and charges were framed against the accused under Section 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶20

In after charge evidence, applicant appeared himself in the witness box as PW-1 and did not examine any other witness.

¶21

The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.5.2014 ordered the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 7. Hence, the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leave to appeal by the complainant-applicant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in ordering the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 7 as the applicant had been successful in proving his case. The Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 7, has held as under:-

¶23

“8. After hearing the rival contention of ld. Counsel for the parties and after going through the oral as well documentary evidence produced on record, I am of the considered view that it is the case of the complainant that on 17.9.2006, accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to him and his brother Raju at the funeral ground. They were saved by Dayaram and Kallu. Complainant was taken to hospital by Ct. Amar Singh after he had got recorded his DDR No. 3 dated 17.9.2006 in the police station. But from it is apparent that the alleged incident had happened on

¶24

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

-3 -

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014

¶27

17.9.2006, whereas the present complainant has been filed on 17.11.2008, i.e. after more than two years from the date of alleged incident. Though the complainant has tried to explain the delay of almost 2 years and 2 month by stating that he has been trying to arrange the copy of the MLR during this period as the doctor who had conducted his medical examination, had proceeded on leave. But this explanation of the complainant is not satisfactory enough and is not sustainable for a simple reason that the copy of MLR is given to the patient on the date of his examination and in case, it is not provided on the same date, it remains in the hospital and can be easily obtained within a day or two.

¶28

9. Moreover, the complainant has not examined his brother Raju in the present case, who was the injured and the eye witness to the incident, as per the complainant. No reason whatsoever has been cited by the complainant for non examination of the such a material witness. No medical of Raju was got conducted in the present case, whereas as per the complainant, accused persons have also caused injuries to Raju. Hence, non examination of Raju, cast clouds on the case of the complainant.

¶29

10. As far as the testimonies of Dayaram (CW1) and Kallu (CW5) is concerned, as per the complainant, the above said persons have came to the spot after hearing the hue and cry of the complainant and his brother Raju, so they are not supposed to have any knowledge regarding the alleged injuries caused by the accused

¶30

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014

¶32

-4 -

¶33

persons to the complainant and Raju.

¶34

11. It is pertinent to mention here that, the accused Madan and Girraj have filed a criminal complaint against the brother of the complainant, Raju and others, who have been convicted by the court of Sh. Vikas Gupta, Ld. SDJM, Hodal vide order dated 10.3.2014, under Section 323, 325, 452, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Ex. D1. The above said complaint was also filed with respect to the incident dated 17.9.2006. For this complainant has stated that, when the accused persons were beating him, some neighbors have caused injuries to them while saving the complainant. The complainant did not disclose that Raju, his brother was one of the assailants, who caused injuries to the accused persons on 17.9.2006.

¶35

12. Moreover, it is hard to digest as to how the focus of the accused persons have suddenly shifted to the complainant, when they allegedly in the abusing his brother Raju. This position could have been cleared, if the complainant would have examined his brother Raju. Further pendency of a criminal complaint against the family of the complainant, could be reason of present complaint as it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Davinder Vs. State of Haryana, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 782, that , “Enmity is double edged weapon, as it may provide a motive for crime and also for false implication.”

¶36

The Trial Court rightly held that there is inordinate

¶37

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014

¶39

-5 -

¶40

delay in filing of the complaint. Moreover, applicant had failed to examine any other eye witness in support of his case after the charge was framed against the accused. Even medical examination of Raju was not conducted in the present case whereas as per the applicant, Raju had also suffered injuries. Even injured Raju was not examined by the applicant in support of his case after the charges were framed against the accused. In a criminal complaint against the applicant and others qua the incident in question at the instance of accused, the Trial Court has ordered their conviction. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the complaint in question had been filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed against them by the accused party.

¶41

Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court. The reasons given by the Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 7, are sound reasons and call for no interference.

¶42

Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

¶43

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:

¶44

“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.29 12:21 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

-6 -

¶46

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014

¶47

appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”

¶48

To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the

¶49

Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.

¶50

Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479 , the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

¶51

“8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is

¶52

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶53

-7 -

¶54

Crl. Misc. No. A-1221-MA of 2014

¶55

proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed”

¶56

No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶57

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶58

November 25, 2014 Gurpreet

¶59

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Prem Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Goyal & Anr. Vs Anita Rani & Ors.

Hari Ram Vs Shri Jainendra Gurukul

Amrinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Tyagi Vs M/S Nayas Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ruby Gill and Anr. Vs Ajay Kumar Neb

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