Crl. Appeal No. 242-MA of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 242-MA of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 5, 2010 Smt. Munni Devi and another ........Appellants Versus Bhuvnesh and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants. SABINA, J. Respondents No. 1 and 2 faced trial under Sections 323,382,452,149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') on a complaint filed by the appellant Munni Devi. Vide impugned judgment the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents No.1 and 2 of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present application filed by the complainant/appellants under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.) for permission to file an appeal against the impugned judgment. The case of the complainant in brief as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of the impugned order reads as under :- “Complainant filed on behalf of the complainant inter-alia on the allegations that on 9.9.1999, the complainant was busy in her house hold work. At about 2.30 pm, Krishan Dutt son of Dhann Ram and Bubnesh Crl. Appeal No. 242-MA of 2010 (O&M) 2 son of Krishan Dutt came along with 20-25 unidentified persons and forcibly entered into her house. Accused Bubnesh and one another young man whom the accused Bubnesh was calling in the name of Chunnu caught hold her forcibly and pushed her out from her room and two another person, which shall be identified, if they come in front of her, caught hold her and confined in the adjacent room. All these persons had throwed out their all house hold articles. Her house-hold articles damaged. She was wrongfully confined by these persons for more than one hour. After throwing out house-hold articles Bubnesh, Krishan and one another person bring her out from the room where she was confined and gave her fist and kick blows. Bubnesh snatched her golden finger ring and that is why she got injury in her little finger. On the same day at about 6:00 pm, her husband came and she narrated him all the story. They both searched their house-hold articles, which were lying on the road side in front of their clinic. Their lockers key, one golden chains and Rs. 50,000/- of the life insurance which were on her husbands client's were not found. The above said accused persons had forcibly entered into her house and robbed and above said articles. The complainant approached to the SHO PS Beri, for the necessary legal action but he asked to appear before DSP, Jhajjar. The complainant with her husband appeared before DSP Jhajjar and narrated her tale and Crl. Appeal No. 242-MA of 2010 (O&M) 3 DSP put a note on the application of the complainant and asked them to appear before S.P. Jhajjar. The complainant appeared before the SP Jhajjar on the same day and moved the application for legal action. The SP Jhajjar received the application of the complainant and entered into the Daily Dairy vide no. 534/SPR/9.9.1999/SP Jhajjar and asked the complainant to reach at PS Beri. There the complainant was got medically examined by the police at CHC Beri and assured that legal action should be taken.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that instant application is without any merit and deserves dismissal. The learned trial Court acquitted respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that complainant had herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. The statement of the husband of the complainant could not be relied upon as he was not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and had deposed as per the events of the occurrence narrated to him by his wife. The statement of the Doctor Dinesh Kumar, who was examined as PW-3 was held to be doubtful as he had failed to produce the original Medico-Legal Report of the complainant. The statement of the photographer was held to be doubtful as the said witness failed to tell as to how much amount had been taken by him from the complainant for taking the photographs. It has been further observed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment that name of accused No.3 was given in the complainant as Chhunu @ Pardeep @ Dinesh, but later on the name of the accused No.3 was given as Dinesh, after three years of the alleged occurrence. Accused No.3 Dinesh also proved on record that he had remained present at Chandigarh on 9.9.1999 in his office, whereas Crl. Appeal No. 242-MA of 2010 (O&M) 4 the occurrence had allegedly taken place at 2.30 p.m. at 9.9.1999. The allegations against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were that they had inflicted fists blows on the person of the complainant. However, the complainant had failed to establish any motive which forced the accused to inflict injuries on the person of the complainant. The complainant had withdrawn the suit filed by her claiming herself to be in possession of the house in question. Complainant also failed to examine any witness from the locality to establish her possession over the house in question. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that the sole testimony of the complainant could not be relied upon to base the conviction of the accused. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 748, 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 State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, 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 Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SCC 166, 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 inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” No ground for interference is made out. Crl. Appeal No. 242-MA of 2010 (O&M) 5 Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the criminal misc. application is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) May 5, 2010 JUDGE Anand