IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.133-MA of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2009 Ajaib Singh Applicant Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr.H.K.Verma, Advocate for Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the applicant ….. Jasbir Singh, J. This application has been filed with a prayer, to grant leave to file an appeal against order dated 18.11.2008, vide which, the private respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Before the Court below, it was case of the applicant-complainant that on 3.11.1996, the private respondents, after entering his farmhouse (haveli), had caused injuries to him. For the alleged occurrence, the applicant-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the private respondents on 17.3.1997. The trial Court, in paragraph No.2 of its Criminal Misc. No.133-MA of 2009(O&M) 2 judgment, has noted the following facts, on the basis of which, criminal complaint was filed by the applicant:- “Briefly stated the present complaint has been filed by Ajaib Singh against Gurmeet Singh & others stating that he is doing the agriculture work and is residing at Suraj Nagar, at Moga. He has his agriculture land at village Khosa Jalal Singh Wala alongwith house and he used to visit his land and house. On 3.11.96 he alongwith his father Bakhtawar Singh and Jaswant Singh son of Gurdev Singh went to village Khosa Jalal Singh Wala. At about 11.30 AM when the complainant was repairing water motor in his Haveli with the help of Jaswant Singh then Gurmeet Singh son of Surjeet Singh Jat, resident of deh with Karpan, Gurpreet Singh son of Surjeet Singh with Gandasa, Jarnail Kaur @ Jailo wife of Surjeet Singh with Dang and Baljinder Kaur @ Balwinder Kaur wife of Gurmeet Singh came with Dang in the Haveli of complainant. Gurmeet Singh raised Lalkara that today he would teach lesson to complainant for making partition with their brother Lakhbir Singh. Then Gurmeet Singh gave karpan blow on complainant which fell on the left side of head of complainant. Gurmeet Singh gave an another karpan blow. The complainant in order to save him raised his left hand which fell on the four fingers of left hand of the complainant. Gurpreet Singh gave Gandasa blow which fell on the elbow on the right arm. The complainant fell down. Gurpreet Singh gave Gandasa blow from the reverse side of Criminal Misc. No.133-MA of 2009(O&M) 3 complainant which fell on the thighs of complainant. Jarnail Kaur @ Jailo also gave Dang blow to the complainant. Gurmeet Singh caught the complainant from his hair and made him lying on reverse side and Baljinder Kaur gave Dang blow on the shoulders of the complainant. The complainant raised Raula. Then the accused fled away from the spot. The father of the complainant Bakhtawar Singh rescued him from the accused. Bakhtawar Singh & Jaswant Singh witnessed the incident. Bakhtawar Singh admitted him in the hospital by arranging vehicle.” After recording preliminary evidence, the private respondents were summoned to face trial. In order to prove his case, the applicant- complainant examined Dr.Avtar Singh and himself appeared in the witness box. On conclusion of complainant’s evidence, statements of the private respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them which they denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they led no evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence formed an opinion that the applicant-complainant has failed to bring home guilt of the respondents and accordingly they were acquitted and complaint was dismissed. Hence this application. After hearing counsel for the applicant, we feel that in view of facts on record, it is not possible for us to interfere at the instance of the applicant. Criminal Misc. No.133-MA of 2009(O&M) 4 Admittedly, present is a family dispute. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the real nephews of the applicant, respondent No.3 is his real sister-in-law and respondent No.4 is wife of respondent No.2. It was case of the applicant that the respondents were nursing a grouse against him on account of a fact that Lakhbir Singh, brother of respondent Nos.1 and 2 had got separated his share in the agricultural land and gave that piece of land, for cultivation, to the complainant. As per allegation of the applicant, occurrence had taken place on 3.11.1996. He went to the police station for registration of an FIR only on 6.11.1996. On verification, his version found to be incorrect and accordingly, FIR was not recorded. Thereafter, he kept mum and filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, on 17.3.1997 i.e. after a gap of about four months. In view of facts mentioned above, this Court is satisfied that there was ample opportunity with the applicant-complainant to concoct a false story against the respondents, to settle score with them, on account of a family dispute. In pre-charge evidence, the applicant has produced PW6 Dr.Mohan Lal, who has conducted medical examination of the applicant on 3.11.1996. Above said witness has proved on record MLR (Ex.P3). After summoning of the respondents as accused, that witness was not produced in Court, for cross-examination. The witness had died in the meantime. Dr.Avtar Singh was produced in Court to prove X-ray report (Ex.P1). The trial Court has rightly observed that the respondents had no opportunity to cross-examine PW6 Dr.Mohan Lal and further that Dr.Avtar Singh has failed to bring on record original MLR and X-ray film. The trial Court has further rightly noticed that medical evidence do not corroborate ocular version given Criminal Misc. No.133-MA of 2009(O&M) 5 by the applicant-complainant in his complaint. As per MLR grievous injury was found on little finger of the left hand, which was not possible to be caused, as per version given by the complainant. The trial Court has also rightly observed that delay of four months in filing the complaint was fatal to the case of the applicant-complainant. Before the Court below the applicant had failed to explain the delay in filing the complaint. Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. 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.” Counsel for the applicant-complainant has failed to indicate any mis-reading of evidence on record by the trial Court which may necessitate Criminal Misc. No.133-MA of 2009(O&M) 6 interference by us. Further for condonation of delay in filing this application, the applicant has failed to furnish any plausible explanation. In view of facts mentioned above both the applications stand dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 23.03.2009 (Jora Singh) gk Judge