CRM-A No. 1031-MA of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A No. 1031-MA of 2011 Date of decision : 30.04.2013 Jaswinder Singh @ Gaggu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts and evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially the complainant Jaswinder Singh @ Gaggu son of Bakhshish Singh (for brevity 'the complainant'), has filed a complaint against Pritam Kumar son of Labhu Ram and his son Ravi Kumar-accused (private respondent Nos.2 and 3), under Section 3(x) of The Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred “the Act”). The Special Judge acquitted the private respondents-accused, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.07.2011. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred the present petition for grant of leave to appeal, to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal, invoking the provisions of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.. CRM-A No. 1031-MA of 2011 (O&M) -2- 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 4. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that there was sufficient evidence on record, but the Special Judge committed a legal mistake to acquit the private respondents-accused, sans merit. 5. As is evident from the record, the complainant claimed that on 19.01.2005 at about 4.00 PM, respondents-accused suddenly met him in the street. As soon as he (the complainant) demanded his money, in the meantime, both the accused became furious, slapped him and gave fist & kick blows. They have also remarked that “Chuhria teri himmat kiwen pai saade to paise mangan di”. He was rescued by Nirmal Singh and Rajinder Kumar shopkeepers from their clutches. In the background of these allegations, the complainant has filed the complaint against the respondents- accused, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 6. Having gone through the record, to my mind, if the entire evidence brought on record by the complainant is put together, even then, as all the essential ingredients are totally lacking, therefore, the respondents- accused cannot legally be held liable for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act, in view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in case Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and another vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 931. 7. Not only that, having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the insufficiency, inherent contradictions and improbability in the evidence on record of the complainant and all the CRM-A No. 1031-MA of 2011 (O&M) -3- contentions pertaining to appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the complainant, have already been considered and negatived by the Special Judge, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.07.2011, which in substance is as under: - "In his complaint Ex. P02 it is alleged by the complainant that the accused gave him slaps fist blows and kick blows and in his examination in chief has rather twisted the facts by stating that the accused gave him blows of shoes and took off his turban a serious improvement in his case and further more the words used in the complaint Kuttaya Chuhria tere naal phir samjhange te tainu Janon marange toon paise mang ke saadi beizti kiti haia and in his evidence as PW02 in his examination-in-chief have totally contradicted these words and have brought about some thing new and even in the testimony of his eye witness PW03 Rajinder Kumar a totally new version has been put forth in the terms “Kuttaya Chuhria Majhbia Tu sab de samne paise mang ke sadi beiziti kiti hai” and has rather stated that the accused slapped him and the very cross examination of the complainant shows that he is a Graduate and has rather given the name of old accused (Pritam Kumar) to be Satish Kumar Chawla and thus, illustrates in no uncertain terms that he has failed to identify even this accused and in his cross examination has showed his inability to give any documentary proof of his transactions with the accused or shop number of the accused and has even failed to give the names of the adjoining shops and accepts that he has never maintained any account of his business or dealings with the accused and is even unable to tell if the Penja Machine can be used to create thread out of the old torn clothes or not and though accepts that he can read and write in English as well as Punjabi, but is unable to give registration number of the Scooter, which is a subsequent addition in his examination-in-chief over and above to his allegations made in the complaint Ex.PO2 and when confronted with his application made to the police he accepts that he had moved application before the police on 19.01.2005,. one day prior to the complaint and his inability to give diary number of the application or its fate and admits that he never met higher police officers regarding his complaint and accepts that he did not file a suit for recovery of his dues nor issued any notice for getting back his dues and the most material admission that has come out in his cross examination as pointed out by the learned defence counsel that this complainant is facing trial in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Punjab Excise Act as well as under Sections 324/34 of IPC and accepts that Shri Vinod Kumar Monga Advocate was his counsel and attorney in a number of cases and that he is visiting the Courts for more than six years and, therefore, is clearly a dark side to his antecedents. The other witness PW03 Rajinder Kumar in the light of the submissions of the prosecution and the defence shows that he is running a Tailor Master's shop and knows the accused for the last 07-08 years and is unable to give the family particulars of any of the accused or the complainant and is unable to show any documentary proof that he was a Tailor or runs such a business or that he was a resident of Faridkot and the most crucial admission by this witness as has been pointed out by the learned defence counsel that he is unable to give the names or particulars of the persons, who reside at the back of his house and undermines the case of the complainant by stating that the accused had only given fist blows and no other injury was given and did not observe him in a disarrayed state and he was normal and, therefore, undermines the fact as claimed by the complainant that the accused took off his turban and when further cross examined this witness has given totally different words spoken by the accused and accepts that the word “Chuhra” denotes Balmiki Caste and accepts that Majbi Sikh is a different caste and accepts that he has heard about Shri Ashok Kumar Monga Advocate. It is very much evident from the over all evidence detailed and discussed above and the words spoken CRM-A No. 1031-MA of 2011 (O&M) -4- are not attributable specifically to any of the accused besides being materially at variance from the filing of the complaint till the recording of the evidence and had been at much contradiction nor it any where establishes the fact that he accused intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant and the mere fact that the complainant claims that the accused had called him by his Caste does not constitute any offence Reliance placed on 2001(3) Criminal Court Judgments, 533 (Allahabad), Pappu Singh Versus State of U.P. Together with the fact that the entire evidence is half baked self contradictory and does not repose any confidence being neither cogent nor substantive together with the inordinate delay and the failure of the complainant to substantiate his allegations of having made any such complaint to the police are matters, which weigh heavily in the mind of the Court and, thus, giving benefit of doubt to both the accused Pritam Kumar and Ravi Kumar they are acquitted of the charges so framed against them.” 8. Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has examined the matter in right perspective, recorded the cogent grounds and correctly acquitted the accused. Learned counsel did not point out any material/reasons, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Such impugned judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., unless and until the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.07.2011 deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. April 30, 2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) naresh.k Judge