1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc No. 668-MA of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 18.2.2010 *** Harbhajan Kaur .. Applicant-appellant VS. Jiwan Singh & Ors. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The acquittal of respondents No.1 to 6 in a privately instituted criminal complaint by the applicant-complainant has led her to seek leave of this Court to prefer an appeal impugning the findings recorded in the judgment dated 30.9.2009. The applicant filed a complaint against respondents No.1 to 6 alleging therein that on 24.10.2004, all of them, after forming an unlawful assembly, came on the land which is in her possession and in respect of which civil litigation is going on between the parties and accused- respondent Jiwan Singh and Jaspal singh, in the presence of Dayal Singh and Jaswant Singh fired shots pointing upon her as well as her grand son Sukhvir Singh, but they managed to save themselves. It is further alleged that accused persons exhorted that complainant being Ramdasia caste has no right to cultivate the land. The complainant further alleged that despite the matter being reported to the police, no action was taken. On the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the accused-respondents were summoned for the offences under Sections 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referred 2 to the SC & ST Act). However, after committal proceedings, the accused- respondent were served with charge sheet under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 3(x) of the SC & ST Act. After framing of the charge, the complainant examined herself as PW1 besides examining Jaswant Singh and Sukhvir Singh as PW2 and PW3 respectively. The accused pleaded their false implication in this case and got produced Sukhvir Singh as DW1, Jaswinder Singh as DW2 and HC Narinderpal Singh as DW3. On conclusion of the trial and on appraisal of the evidence produced on record, the Court below concluded that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and that no alleged occurrence ever took place and consequently acquitted the accused-respondent. Hence, the instant application seeking leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the judgment of the trial court and find ourselves in total agreement with the findings recorded therein. Admittedly, the parties are having chequered history of prolonged litigation over the land upon which the alleged occurrence had taken place and the civil suits filed by the complainant were decided against her. There was an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 11 days in filing the impugned complaint, which was filed on 4.11.2004. Although, it was pleaded that the matter was reported to the police and no action was taken, but it has come on record that after filing of the impugned complaint, the complainant also preferred a complaint to the police, which is dated 17.12.2004, in relation to the alleged incident and the same was found false, on enquiry by a Senior police officer. The complainant deliberately concealed the said fact from the Court and it is only by way of defence evidence, the said enquiry report was produced by the accused-respondent on the records of the case. Further, the tenor and manner in which the alleged occurrence took place was not believed by the Court below. Although, it was claimed that the accused were six in numbers and had allegedly fire shots, but, admittedly, none had received any injury in the alleged occurrence. Moreover, it is the case of the complainant that the alleged occurrence had taken place during day time and many houses are 3 situated adjoining to that place, but none from the nearby vicinity was produced to substantiate the allegations. One of the alleged eye-witness Dayal Singh was not examined by the complainant for the reasons best known to her while another witness Jaswant Singh, so examined by the complainant, was found to be her stock witness, as it was amply proved that this witness also appeared from the side of complainant in other cases as well and Jasvir Singh, the other witness admittedly is none else, but her grand-son. Thus, taking from any angle the version of the complainant and her witnesses was found untrue and finding the essential ingredients of offence under the SC & ST Act conspicuously missing, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the leave asked for and the prayer is accordingly declined. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE February 18,2010 Jiten