IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-315-MA of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 27.07.2010 State of Punjab .... APPLICANT Versus Baldev Singh ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab, for the applicant-State. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The State of Punjab has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9.10.2009, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby the accused (respondent herein) has been acquitted in case FIR No. 198 dated 13.11.2004 under Sections 307/326/323 IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant-State and have gone through the impugned judgment. In this case, as per the prosecution story, on 11.11.2004 at about 8.30 PM, respondent-accused along with one more person, caused injuries to complainant Baljit Singh (PW.7), when he was coming to Raikot from Barnala on his scooter after doing his duty. According to the Crl. Misc. No. A-315-MA of 2010 -2- complainant, two persons were already standing on the road and they stopped him. Out of those two persons, only the respondent was identified by the complainant as Baldev Singh. Both the persons were armed with Gandasa. The respondent-accused gave a Gandasa blow on his head and raised Lalkara addressing his companion that he is Baljit Singh, to whom they were waiting. As a result of Gandasa blow, the complainant fell down from his scooter. Then the respondent-accused and his companion started giving injuries to him. On raising alarm by the complainant, one Gurdip Singh came on the scene. On seeing him, both the assailants ran away from the spot with their weapons. According to the complainant, the motive behind the occurrence is that Manpreet Kaur Dhaliwal, District President of Mehla Mandal of Congress Party instigated the respondent-accused to the effect that in a complaint filed by her against the complainant, had the wife of the respondent-accused not given statement in favour of the complainant, then the complainant would have been entangled in some case. On this instigation, the respondent-accused gave beatings to his wife and thereafter, with the help of some unknown person, he caused injuries to the complainant. On the same day i.e. on 11.11.2004, Dr. Harjinder Singh (PW.3) medico legally examined the complainant and found 11 injuries on his person. Except injury No.1 on the head, which was caused by sharp edged weapon, all the remaining injuries were abrasions and were caused by blunt weapon. No opinion of the doctor was obtained as to whether injury Crl. Misc. No. A-315-MA of 2010 -3- No.1 was dangerous to life or not. After two days of the occurrence, i.e. on 13.11.2004, the FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the court and charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the respondent-accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The respondent-accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had pleaded innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. He took the plea that the complainant had illicit relations with his wife. On the day of occurrence, in the absence of the respondent-accused, the complainant was present in the house of the respondent-accused. The residents of the Mohalla gathered there and caused him injuries with brick- bats and stones. In defence, the respondent-accused examined four witnesses. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the evidence led by the respondent-accused, the trial court has acquitted the respondent-accused, while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the respondent-accused. It was found that the testimonies of two star witnesses, namely complainant Baljit Singh (PW.7) and Gurdip Singh (PW.2), do not inspire any confidence and the contradictions in their statements create serious doubt in the prosecution version. On careful consideration of the impugned judgment of the trial Crl. Misc. No. A-315-MA of 2010 -4- court, in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-State, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the trial court. In the present case, the prosecution did not obtain the opinion of the doctor about the nature of injury No.1. The trial court found that there is no evidence on record, which establish that injury No.1 on the body of the complainant was dangerous to life. The trial court has also come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. It has been found that at the time of his medical examination by the doctor on the day of occurrence itself, the complainant-injured was very much conscious and he had put his signatures on the MLR, but he stated that after receiving the injuries, he became unconscious. His statement was got recorded after third day. He explained that during that period, he was unconscious, whereas as per the record and the statement of the doctor, he was very much conscious on the day when he suffered injuries. It has also been found that as per the version of the complainant, two persons, who were armed with Gandasas, gave injuries to him by those weapons, but as per the medical evidence, except injury No.1, all the other ten injuries on the body of the complainant were caused by blunt weapon. It has not been explained by the complainant as to with which weapon these injuries were caused to him. The trial court, after noticing the various contradictions in the statement of the complainant, came to the conclusion that the version given by him regarding his falling from the scooter and receiving the injuries at the hands of two persons does Crl. Misc. No. A-315-MA of 2010 -5- not inspire confidence. PW.2 Gurdeep Singh, who according to the complainant came on the spot and took him to the Hospital, has not supported the prosecution case. He has categorically stated that the respondent-accused, who was present in the court, did not cause any injury to the complainant in his presence. Thus, the sole statement of the complainant has not been corroborated by the other witness. Even the Investigating Officer was not produced by the prosecution for cross- examination. His examination-in-chief as PW.6 is available on the record, but later on he did not turn up for his cross-examination. The trial court has noticed various cuttings on the site plan, which remained unexplained. While taking into consideration all these factors, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the applicant-State has vehemently argued that the trial court has acted illegally, while disbelieving the statement of the injured witness. After carefully considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-State, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly appreciated the testimony of the complainant and has come to the conclusion that there are various contradictions in the version, which lead the same as untrustworthy and not reliable. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record has taken a particular view, which goes in favour of the respondent-accused. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial court is a Crl. Misc. No. A-315-MA of 2010 -6- possible view, which could have been taken by a court in the facts and circmstances of the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court is totally perverse and illegal. This is one of the possible view, which could have been taken by a court. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE July 27, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) ndj JUDGE