Dismissed

Anoop Singh v. Bagga Singh& Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2014CRM-A/733/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a special leave petition under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. filed against an acquittal. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to hostile witnesses and a credible alibi defence.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is dismissed; no case for special leave.

Anoop Singh Vs Bagga Singh& Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.A-733-MA of 2013 Date of Decision : December 01, 2014

Anoop Singh

…..Applicant

VERSUS

Bagga Singh and others …..Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. SHEKHER DHAWAN

¶8

Present : Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate for the applicant.

¶9

Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶10

Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.3-State.

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶12

The complainant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.2.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sirsa, whereby the accused respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC in a private criminal complaint instituted by him.

¶13

The case set up by the complainant/applicant was that on 19.6.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. when he was going to his Dhani and on seeing his brother Baljit Singh, stopped his scooter, then respondents Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh came there on a scooter. Bagga Singh fired at the complainant, who had a narrow escape and fell down. Bagga Singh then gave blow with the butt of the pistol on his chest

¶14

and head. Jagraj Singh also attacked him with a datar . The SATISH KUMAR 2015.01.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

Criminal Misc. No.A-733-MA of 2013

¶16

-2-

¶17

complainant was able to escape two blows of the datar . However, the third blow hit him on his left leg. One Sudesh Kumar also came there and instigated Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh to kill him. After seeing the villagers coming towards the spot, the accused ran away. According to the complainant, Sudesh Kumar used to nurse grudge against him as a criminal case stood registered against him under Section 420 IPC for forging a sale deed, which criminal case was pending and the complainant was a witness. The complainant had also lodged a case of dacoity against the accused. The complainant further stated that in regard to the present incident, the police did register an FIR on 20.6.2013 but in collusion with the accused, presented a false cancellation report. Accordingly, he was constrained to oppose the same by filing the protest petition.

¶18

Vide order dated 10.9.2009, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa dismissed the protest petition/complaint with regard to Section 307 IPC. However, both Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh as well as Sudesh Kumar were summoned to face trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Both, Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh were, thereafter, arrested. However, Sudesh Kumar could not be arrested and on 14.5.2010, the complainant made a statement that he did not want any further proceedings against Sudesh Kumar, at that stage, as he did not know his address. Resultantly, the trial proceeded only against Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh. After recording pre-charge evidence, the trial Court charged both Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh for the aforementioned offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed

¶19

SATISH KUMAR 2015.01.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Criminal Misc. No.A-733-MA of 2013

¶21

-3-

¶22

trial. In after-charge evidence, the defence examined couple of prosecution witnesses. Both the accused were, thereafter, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where they pleaded false implication on account of old rivalry. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses, who deposed regarding accused Jagraj Singh of being present in Sub Division Madhosinghana on 19.6.2003, the day of the occurrence, between 2.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., where he was posted as SA.

¶23

The trial Court, after going through the evidence available on the record and hearing the counsel for the parties, held that the complainant had remained unsuccessful in proving the case against Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both of them were acquitted of the charges against them.

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record which was requisitioned from the trial Court.

¶25

It is the case of complainant himself that he had lodged a case of dacoity against Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh accused. Against accused Sudesh Kumar, he had also got registered a criminal case under Section 420 IPC for forging the sale deed. The complainant also admitted that cousin of accused Bagga Singh had filed a criminal complaint against him in which he was imprisoned for five years. To the same effect was the testimony of respondent No.4 Baljit Singh, who is brother of the complainant. The complainant also examined PW3 Kuldeep Singh in regard to the ocular account of the occurrence. Said Kuldeep Singh stated that accused Sudesh Kumar

¶26

had deposed against him in a civil case. Thus, it is made out that the SATISH KUMAR 2015.01.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Criminal Misc. No.A-733-MA of 2013

¶28

-4-

¶29

attitude of the complainant as well as of his witnesses against accused was hostile and that could have impelled them to level false allegations against Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh.

¶30

Coming to the plea of alibi taken by accused Jagraj Singh, it may be noticed that the occurrence was said to have taken place on 19.6.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. whereas accused Jagraj Singh has brought material to establish that he was present at Sub Division Madhosinghana on 19.6.2003 between 2.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m as he was posted as S.A. there. In his testimony DW1 Girdhari Lal stated that accused Jagraj Singh remained present on duty on 19.6.2003 between 2.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. He also stated that during the police investigation, he and Bhagwan Dutt, Junior Engineer submitted joint affidavit regarding the presence of accused Jagraj Singh at the place of his posting on the date of the occurrence. Bhagwan Dutt stepped into the witness-box as DW2 and corroborated the version of DW1 Girdhari Lal. On a perusal of the attendance register, which is on the file, it is made out that the presence of all the officials had been marked in the normal course of business and with regard to the month of June, 2003, the name of accused Jagraj Singh stands mentioned at serial No. 4. Thus, it cannot be said that accused Jagraj Singh was present at the place of occurrence at 7.30 p.m. on 19.6.2003. Furthermore, if the complainant party could falsely implicate accused Jagraj Singh, it could very well come up with false allegations against his brother Bagga Singh also.

¶31

The manner in which the occurrence was said to have taken place leaves much to doubt. If Bagga Singh could fire once, but

¶32

SATISH KUMAR 2015.01.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

Criminal Misc. No.A-733-MA of 2013 -5-

¶34

had missed, he could very well fire, once again, at the complainant. He would not have resorted to giving blows with the butt of the fire arm. Similarly, Jagraj Singh was said to have attacked the complainant with datar . The first two attempts made by Jagraj Singh remained futile and only in his third attempt that he could cause a blow upon his left leg. Further, during his cross-examination PW5 Dr. Viresh Bhushan stated that the injury upon the left tibia of complainant Anoop Singh could be possible due to fall on the sharp object. In respect of the distance from which the firing was said to have been resorted to by accused Jagraj Singh, there is contradictory evidence on the file. While the complainant stated in his cross-examination that he was fired at from a distance of 15/20 feet, PW6 Baldev Singh categorically stated that Jagraj Singh had fired from 50 feet.

¶35

In view of the above, no fault can be found with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence available on the record, it cannot be said that both Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh had committed offences for which they stood charged.

¶36

Resultantly, no case is made out for grant of special leave

¶37

to appeal.

¶38

The application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶39

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

¶40

( SHEKHER DHAWAN)

¶41

December 01, 2014 SATISH KUMAR 2015.01.21 12:28satish I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶42

JUDGE

Anoop Singh v. Bagga Singh& Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Singh v. Bagga Singh& Ors.

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

Balwan Singh @ Bablu and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Balwan Singh and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Binder Pal @ Binder Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Vs State of Haryana