Crl.Misc. No. A-669-MA of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.A-669-MA of 2010 Date of Decision: August 09, 2011 Phulo Devi ...........Applicant Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.H.O.Sharma,Advocate for the applicant Mr.Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondents <> Sabina, J. Respondents no. 2 to 5 were tried for an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short `the Act') . Vide judgment dated 24.12.2009, the trial Court acquitted respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present application with the prayer for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present application seeking leave to appeal deserves to be dismissed. Crl.Misc. No. A-669-MA of 2010 2 The case of the applicant, in brief, was that she had contested the election of Sarpanch of village Dhangali and had won the same. The election of Sarpanch was contested by the complainant against reserved vacancy for scheduled caste category. The accused had encroached upon some portion of the Johar/pond by filling up the same and had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court. No interim direction was issued by the Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused came to the house of the complainant and abused her. Accused Surjeet Kaur uttered words ``CHUHRI CHAMARI DEDNI NE TANG KAR DIA'' and accused Nasib Singh said “SORY CHAMARI KO SARPANCH BNAKAR GALTI KAR LEE''. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 openly declared that they would again encroach upon the pond and in case the complainant made any complaint to the District Administrator, then she would have to face the dire consequences. Complainant, in support of its case, led its evidence. During evidence led by the parties, it transpired that a litigation was pending between the parties. An inquiry was conducted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer against the complainant and it was found that she was guilty on six counts and a show cause notice was issued to the complainant dated 20.8.2008. Raj Kumar, Inspector received a complaint moved by the present complainant. On inquiry, it transpired that the complainant had filed the complaint as a counter blast qua litigation between Nasib Singh etc., on one hand, and the complainant, on the other hand, qua pond. The complaint was filed qua digging of the pond upto the depth of 12 feet instead of 4 feet and retaining excess cash in hand and Crl.Misc. No. A-669-MA of 2010 3 prepartion of forged record. The allegations were found to be correct by the District Development and Panchayat Officer. The Gram Panchayat was restrained from digging the pond to the extent of more than 4 feet deep by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The complainant had got the pond vacated from the accused. Since there was a litigation pending between the parties, the learned trial Court rightly held that the possibility that the accused had been falsely involved in this case could not be ruled out. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri vs. 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 vs. 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. In the facts and circumstances, the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused are just and proper and there is no merit in the criminal miscellaneous application seeking leave to appeal in Crl.Misc. No. A-669-MA of 2010 4 terms of Section 378(4) of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 09, 2011 arya