[CASE NUMBER] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] Date of Decision: 25.11.2013 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY],Advocate for the petitioner. [ENTITY], J.
Respondent had faced trial under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in a complaint filed by the complainant. The trial Court vide judgment dated 23.1.2013 acquitted respondent of the notice of accusation framed against him. Hence, the present petition by the complainant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, was that [ENTITY] (since deceased) got married to [ENTITY] and they were blessed with three daughters out of the said wedlock. [ENTITY] again got married to [ENTITY] and, thereafter,started harassing [ENTITY]. Due to [ENTITY] this reason, there was a lot of litigation pending between him and [ENTITY]. On 22.9.2003, petitioner and her mother [ENTITY] were present in the Court premises with regard to maintenance proceedings and they were assaulted by the accused. Accused also threatened the petitioner and her mother to withdraw litigation filed by them.
The learned trial Court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent, held that there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint. In fact, the complaint had been filed after one month of the occurrence and there was no proof on the record that the matter had been reported to the police immediately. Learned trial Court rightly doubted the presence of eye witness [ENTITY] at the spot as he had left the Court premises.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT], while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was [ENTITY] inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
The reasons given by the trial Court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent, are sound reasons and call for no interference .
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 25, 2013 arya