Dismissed

Sukhdev v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2014CRM-A/771/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a criminal trial involving assault. The bench found the lower court's judgment correct, noting unexplained delays, lack of injuries, and doubts in the prosecution's evidence warranting dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed; judgment below left unaltered.

Sukhdev Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

216

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.A-771-MA of 2014 Date of decision: December 08, 2014

Sukhdev

...Applicant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Applicant-Sukhdev has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against State of Haryana and other respondents challenging the judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, whereby the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 34 IPC.

¶14

It is mainly stated in the application that there are moot points involved which are mentioned in the grounds of appeal and accused persons have been acquitted under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 34 IPC ignoring the material evidence as well as the statement of complainant and other relevant documents. It is further VINEET GULATIstated in the application that there are sufficient grounds for the 2014.12.17 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CRM No.A-771-MA of 2014

¶16

-2-

¶17

conviction of the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 and therefore, leave to appeal may be granted in the present case.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that complainant filed a complaint with the allegations that he is running a 'Atta Chakki' in village Habana. There is a nali in front of the shop of complainant. Accused Charan Singh is also running a 'Atta Chakki', near the shop of the complainant. On 06.02.2007, accused persons poured earth/soil in the street near the house of the complainant due to which flow of dirty water blocked and collected in front of shop of the complainant. The complainant asked the accused to remove the said earth, upon which, accused Charan Singh became furious and started abusing complainant with the name of mother and sister. To avoid any controversy, complainant went into his house but after few minutes, accused Som Nath holding with lathi , Pawan and Smt.Satya Devi holding dandas in their hands and accused Charan Singh holding a brick in his hand, entered inside the house of complainant forcibly. The complainant and his brother Subhash were sitting on the cot. Charan Singh gave brick bat blow on the left side of head of the complainant and gave lalkara to kill the complainant. The complainant fell down. Accused Som Nath gave lathi blow on the left arm of the complainant and accused Satya Devi also gave danda blows on the person of complainant. Brother of complainant tried to rescue the

¶20

complainant from the clutches of the accused but accused Pawan

¶21

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.17 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CRM No.A-771-MA of 2014

¶23

-3-

¶24

gave danda blow on the person of Subhash. Charan Singh also gave kick and first blows on chest and stomach of the complainant. In precharge evidence, complainant examined CW-1 Dr.Anjali Vaid, CW-2 Sukhdev Singh and CW-3 Subhash Chand.

¶25

Learned JMIC, Kurukshetra after discussing the evidence in minute detail, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused in the complaint case.

¶26

After going through the record, especially the judgment passed by learned JMIC, Kurukshetra, I find that no illegality has been committed by the Court below nor in any way, the judgment can be held as perverse. There is nothing on the record that evidence has not been discussed in right perspective or some material evidence has not been discussed.

¶27

First of all, as regarding Subhash, no specific injury was found on his person. As per the statement of CW-1 Dr.Anjali Vaid, injury No.1 on the person of Subhash is complain of chest pain. It is stated that there is slight difficulty in breathing. In the crossexamination, the doctor has specifically stated that she has not seen any visible injury upon Subhash but he was complaining chest pain. As regarding complainant, she stated that there was clean lacerated wound on the left side of scalp and wound was bleeding profusely and second injury was abrasion on the left arm. As per the doctor, patient was advised X-ray but he did not get conducted X-ray nor shown X- ray film to doctor. So, from the statement of doctor, I find that there

¶28

was no injury on the person of Subhash but doctor stated that he

¶29

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.17 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CRM No.A-771-MA of 2014

¶31

-4-

¶32

remained admitted in PHC from 06.02.2007 to 15.02.2007. When there is no injury on the person of Subhash, there is no need for his admission in the hospital for such a long period. It prima facie shows that this evidence has been created and creates doubt in the prosecution version. Similarly, with one simple injury, Sukhdev, who even has not got conducted his X-ray of the injury, also remained admitted in PHC from 06.02.2007 to 15.02.2007. As there is no apparent injury on the person of Subhash and he tried to create evidence by showing complain of chest pain and then by remaining admitted in the PHC, shows that he cannot be believed or it is possible that he may not be present on the spot. Similar is the case with complainant Sukhdev. Nothing has been shown as to why he remained admitted in hospital for 10 days, when he even did not get the X-ray conducted. Secondly, I find that this complaint is stated to have been filed on 04.06.2007 but the occurrence took place on 06.02.2007. Such a long delay has remained unexplained. It is also possible that this delay might have been due to reason that complainant must have no such injury on his person. This unexplained delay of about four months further creates doubt in the complainant's version.

¶33

Next, I find that it is in the evidence that another FIR was lodged. There is also a cross case, which proves enmity between the parties. No independent witness has been examined in the present case. The fact that proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against present complainant, further creates doubt in

¶34

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.17 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CRM No.A-771-MA of 2014

¶36

-5-

¶37

the complainant's version.

¶38

In view of the above, I find that the judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court.

¶39

Therefore, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.

¶40

December 08, 2014 Vgulati

¶41

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶42

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.17 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sukhdev v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev v. State of Haryana and 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

Khalil Vs Jaituni and Anr.

Jasvir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sharanjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Om Parkash Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.

Palwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.