The Criminal Revisional Bench denied leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against an acquittal. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on evidence and law, were not perverse, and no material evidence was misread or ignored.
Application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. stood 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.
226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.A-899-MA of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: March 01, 2017
Dilbag Singh
...Applicant
Versus
Jogi Ram and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Harish Mehla, Advocate for the applicant.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Applicant-Dilbag Singh has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against Jogi Ram and other respondents, challenging the judgment dated 23.08.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, whereby the accusedrespondents 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 judgment of acquittal has been passed on irrelevant considerations. The evidence led by the applicant has been overlooked and has not been property appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.
As per the record, the complainant Dilbag Singh filed a Vineet Gulati 2017.03.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy andcomplaint against accused Jogi Ram, Nanhi Devi, Phool Singh @ Karma authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-899-MA of 2013 -2-
and Sanju @ Sanjiv under Sections 323, 452, 506, 325, 451/34 IPC. The averments of the complaint as noted down in the judgment passed by learned CJM, Kaithal, are as under:-
“Aforementioned complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused interalia on the allegations that on 26.01.2007 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant was present in his house. All the accused came into the house of complainant hurling filthy abuses and they were carrying knife, darati/sickle, lathi and Jaili and opened the attack on him. Accused no.1 gave injury no.1 and 2 from the handle side of knife, accused no.2 gave injury no.3 and 4 from handle side of darati/sickle, accused no.3 gave injury no.5 to teeth injury no.6 prodded with lathi and accused no.4 gave injury no. 7 and 8 from jaily lathi wise. All the accused committed the crime in furtherance of their common intention. It is further alleged that on hearing the noise Man Singh and Sultan Singh reached at the spot and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. The cause of grouse was that his father had given Rs.2,50,000/- to accused Jogi Ram and the family of the complainant asked the accused to return the money.”
Learned CJM, Kaithal, after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment dated 23.08.2013.
Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, present appeal along with application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.
The perusal of the findings given by learned Magistrate shows that these have been given as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse or against the evidence and law. 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.
As per the complainant's version, occurrence took place on
Vineet Gulati 2017.03.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-899-MA of 2013
-3-
26.01.2007 but the complaint was filed on 30.04.2007 and this long delay has not been explained by leading cogent evidence by the complainant. Furthermore, the version looks improbable that accused no.1 gave injury no.1 and 2 from the handle side of knife which means that accused no.1, who was armed with knife was holding the sharp side of the knife and gave injuries with the handle i.e. blunt. By doing so, the person who is giving injuries in such a way, will received injury on his fingers or hand himself. Similarly, it is stated that accused No.2 gave injuries No.3 and 4 from the handle side of sickle but it looks also unnatural that a person would hold sharp side of sickle and would give the injury with the handle of sickle. Again, it is stated that accused No.4 gave injuries No.7 and 8 from jaily lathiwise. Even if it is taken that accused were armed with sharp edged weapon, then why they will give injures from blunt site by holding the sharp side of the weapons.
Furthermore, it is in the evidence that FIR was registered bearing No.37 dated 28.01.2007 against complainant Dilbag Singh and his family members but this material fact has been concealed by the complainant. The final report of that case which was placed on record as Ex.D1, shows that the occurrence took place as per version of Jogi Ram. Injuries were given to Jogi Ram by present complainant Dilbag Singh and his family members at about 11.30 A.M. The place of injuries were shown as different.
The report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was also called and in that report, it is mentioned that on 26.01.2007, Man Singh and Dilbag Singh went to the house of Jogi Ram regarding the amount given by Man Singh to Vineet Gulati 2017.03.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy andJogi Ram and there, fight took place between both the parties. As per the authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-899-MA of 2013
-4-
report also, the occurrence took place at Jogi Ram's house. The Court also held that conduct of CW-2 Man Singh is highly unnatural as beatings were given to his son and he kept on watching the fight for 10 minutes and he did not come to rescue him.
From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Court below, I find that the findings have been given by correctly appreciating the evidence in right perspective. In no way, the judgment can be held as perverse or against the evidence.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2013 passed by learned CJM, Kaithal, 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.
March 01, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2017.03.21 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the accused respondents.
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse or against the evidence and law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilbag Singh
Jogi Ram
Nanhi Devi
Phool Singh
Sanju
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
