Single Judge dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of three accused. The Court found the Lower Court's appreciation of evidence correct, noting lack of medical proof, delay in complaint, and contradictions in witness testimony.
Application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC dismissed.
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.
225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.A-655-MA of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: November 22, 2016
Sheela
...Applicant
Versus
Pawan Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.R.S.Budhwar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate for the respondents.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Applicant-Sheela has filed this application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondents Pawan Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Surjit, challenging the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, vide which the accused-respondents were acquitted.
It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further stated that if the leave is not granted, in that eventuality, the criminal persons like accused-respondents, who had committed the offences against the woman, will be go scot free. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal
be granted.
Vineet Gulati 2016.12.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-655-MA of 2014 -2-
As per the record, the complainant Sheela filed a complaint against Pawan Kumar and 11 other accused under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. The brief facts of the complaint as noted down in the judgment passed by learned CJM, Kurukshetra, are as under:-
“2. The facts of the complaint are that Inder Singh, who is father-in-law of complainant, is owner in possession of land measuring 4 Marlas, situated at village Babain, District Kurukshetra. The complainant along with other family members is residing at village Babain. The said plot was being used for tethering cattle, placing dung cakes and putting rubbish since the year 1965. It is further averred that in the month of June, 2006, accused no.1 and 2 tried to dispossess the complainant's family from the said plot and in this regard a civil suit was filed against the accused. It is further averred that on 16.5.2006, when process server went to the accused to serve with the summons in that civil suit, they flared up, and at about 9.00 a.m. when the complainant and Mangesh Kaur went for putting rubbish in the plot, then all the accused by forming unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons started giving filthy abuses to the complainant and threatened to vacate the plot, otherwise they will have to face dire consequences. Upon this the complainant said that they are owners in possession of said plot, therefore, it is impossible for them to vacate the same. Then, accused Rakesh Kumar caught hold the complainant from her arm and exhorted to teach a lesson to the complainant for putting step on the plot. Accused Pawan Kumar was armed with gandasi and all other accused were armed with lathies and after making exhortation, accused Pawan Kumar gave a gandasi blow on the right side of skull of complainant, due to which she fell down and then accused Rakesh Kumar gave a lathi blow on the left arm of the complainant and thereafter, accused Surjit Singh gave a lathi blow on right thigh of the complainant. All accused gave lathi blows to Inder Singh and his wife Paro Bai. The complainant and Inder Singh raised alarm and on this Om Parkash, Bal Kishan, Rakesh reached there and rescued them from the clutches of the accused. It is averred that the complainant and Mangsh Kaur were taken to PHC Babain where they were medico legally examined and thereafter they went to LJPJ Hospital, Kurukshetra. It is further averred that accused persons were armed with sword and Pawan Kumar was having gun in his hand came in front of the house and compelled to open the door, but the door was bolted from inside. The matter was reported to police but no action was taken against accused. Hence, the present complaint.”
Vineet Gulati 2016.12.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-655-MA of 2014 -3-
Though, the complaint was filed against 12 persons but the trial Court has only summoned three accused namely Pawan Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Surjit Singh and charges were framed under Sections 323, 324 and 506 IPC.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges framed against them.
Notice of motion was issued and learned counsel for the respondents appeared and contested the application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that first of all, in pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW-1, Om Parkash as CW-2 and Inder Singh as CW-3. No doctor has been examined nor the injuries have been proved by bringing cogent evidence. There is no medical evidence on the record to prove the injuries, specially the injury with sharp edged weapon. Therefore, the oral statements of PWs are not supported by medical evidence.
Secondly, the perusal of the complaint itself shows that no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out nor there was any cogent evidence to prove the offence under Section 506 IPC. Furthermore, it looks improbable that 12 persons armed with deadly weapons, would attack the complainant and would give only simple injuries. The occurrence took place on 16.05.2006 at about 9.00 A.M. and the complaint was filed on 01.08.2006 i.e. after a long delay and this delay has not been explained. Vineet Gulati 2016.12.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy andThere is no document on the record to show that the matter was reported to authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-655-MA of 2014 -4-
the police immediately.
Further, I find that the trial Court has discussed the evidence in minute detail. It is held that CW-2 Om Parkash while appearing in the witness box has admitted in cross-examination that it is correct that neither police recorded his statement nor any other person in his presence. He further admitted that they were seen quarreling while standing at a distance of 100-150 yards. The quarrel took place for about half an hour and no one came to rescue the complainant or accused. The specific case of the complainant is that accused Inder Pal had given knife blow to her near right eye and accused Bijender Singh had given a lathi blow on the back whereas accused Surinder had inflicted injuries with iron chain on his legs.
Learned Magistrate held that the complainant has failed to produce the doctor in pre- charge evidence or after framing of the charge. The Court further held from the documents on record that there is civil dispute pending between the parties and the plot, wherein the quarrel has taken place, belongs to accused-persons. The Court also held that in this case, the alleged eye witnesses of the complainant, have not corroborated the version of the complainant and material contradictions were found which totally falsify the version of the complainant.
The perusal of the findings given by the Court below shows that learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse. At the time of arguments, nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings are perverse or Vineet Gulati 2016.12.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy andagainst the law and what illegality has been committed by learned Court authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-655-MA of 2014
-5-
below.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2014 passed by learned CJM, Kurukshetra, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court. No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.
November 22, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2016.12.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC should be granted against the acquittal of accused persons.
Whether the acquittal of the accused persons can be held to be perverse or based on no evidence and requires interference.
Whether the delay in filing the complaint and lack of medical evidence to prove injuries supports conviction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sheela
Pawan Kumar
Rakesh Kumar
Surjit
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
