Criminal Misc. No.764-MA of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.764-MA of 2006 Date of decision : 18.8.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Manga Masih and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. B.S.Sra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No. 4. S. D. ANAND, J. Notice to show cause ( why leave to appeal be not granted against acquittal of Pinder Masih-respondent) was issued on the basis of plea on behalf of the State, that though the Trial Court had observed in para No. 12 of the judgment that the respondent /accused Pinder Masih had also caused injuries with blunt weapon to Chinda Masih, his name had been left out from the relevant para pertaining to award of sentence. The attention of learned State counsel was invited to the following observations recorded by learned Trial Judge in para nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment under challenge :- “In this case, as already mentioned, it was not stated by the PWs in their statements before the police that Binder Masih had given any injury. Witnesses were confronted with their statements in that respect. Binder Masih was not even challaned by the police. He was not even named in the FIR, Criminal Misc. No.764-MA of 2006 -2- **** which was recorded in this case. His named was introduced only in the complaint which was filed on 14.9.1998 in the court. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31.7.1998. As such the complaint was filed after 1-12/ months after the occurrence, and the name of Binder Masih was introduced in the complaint. As such the evidence is not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused Binder. As far as other accused are concerned, evidence given by PWs is consistent regarding the part played by the accused Manga Masih, Mukhtiar Masih and Sucha Masih. Injuries are attributed to all of them. Injuries have been attributed to all of them. Injuries have been attributed even to the accused Mukhtiar Masih.” In the light of the facts noticed by learned Court and quoted in the fore-going para, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court held respondent No. 4 Pinder Masih accountable at law for the offence for which his co-accused were convicted and it also cannot be said that the omission of his name in para pertaining to award of sentence was only a case of typographical error/omission. Infact, learned Trial Court recorded adequate reasons to exonerate respondent no.4-Pinder Masih. Learned State counsel was not in a position to aver that observations made by the learned Trial Court are based upon a factually incorrect premise. The present State plea for grant of leave (to appeal against acquittal of respondent/accused Pinder Masih) shall stand declined. August 18, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Criminal Misc. No.764-MA of 2006 -3- ****