Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for special leave to appeal against an acquittal, applying settled law that acquittals are not interfered with unless guilt is irresistible.
Special leave to appeal was declined.
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.
1
CRM-A-955-MA-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-955-MA-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.10.2017.
Sunita Rani
... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Mahi Pal and others
... Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
Present : Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG Haryana.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J.
This is an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.04.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur vide which respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted in complaint case titled as “Sheo Ram vs. Mahi Pal and another” under Sections 323, 354, 506 and 120-B IPC.
Heard.
A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the
version put forth by the complainant suffers from many contradictions.
Firstly, the complainant has not reported the matter to the police rather
Sanjay has approached the Court on the third day of the occurrence. Further, 2018.04.17 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-A-955-MA-2014
2
no MLR was got conducted on the complainant to show the presence of any injuries. If the doctor of the govt. hospital had refused to do so the complainant could have approached the authorities or else could have gone to some private hospital. The alleged witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Rishi Pal and Bir Singh, Sarpanch were not examined by the complainant for the reasons best known to her. In the inquiry held under Section 202 Cr.P.C, there is no mention of the incident alleged to have taken place on 05.01.2005. This being so, this Court finds itself in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court.
It is a settled law as has been held in C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair , 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750 that even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused. In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.
Consequently, the special leave to appeal is
declined.
23.10.2017. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) SN JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No
Sanjay 2018.04.17 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in an acquittal by a trial Court despite a second view on appreciation of evidence being possible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan NairApplied¶24
C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunita Rani
Mahi Pal
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
