IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-776-MA of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 26.10.2010 State of Haryana .... APPLICANT Versus Jasbir @ Jassu and others ..... RESPONDENTS Crl. Misc. No. A-772-MA of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 26.10.2010 Hansraj .... APPLICANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the applicant-State (in Crl. Misc. No. A-776-MA of 2010) Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the applicant (in Crl. Misc. No. A-772-MA of 2010) Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5 (in Crl.M. No. A-776-MA of 2010) & for respondents No.2 to 6 (in Crl.M. No. A-772-MA of 2010) * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) 1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. A-776-MA of 2010, Crl. Misc. No. A-776-MA of 2010 -2- filed by the State of Haryana and Crl. Misc. No. A-772-MA of 2010, filed by the complainant, for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8.3.2010, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jhajjar, whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charge famed against them for the offence under Section 307 IPC, though they have been convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 452, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC and have been released on probation of good conduct. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant-State, the applicant-complainant as well as the respondents-accused, and have gone through the impugned judgment. 3. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment, the trial court has discussed the issue of acquittal of the respondents-accused for the offence under Section 307 PC. On perusal of these paragraphs, it has been noticed that the trial court has acquitted the respondents-accused for the aforesaid offence, while taking into consideration the following three factors : (i) That Dr. Bal Kishan Goel (PW.5), who gave the opinion (Ex.PC/1), neither treated nor conducted medical examination of injured Sonu. (ii) That Dr. N.K. Sharma, who treated injured Sonu, has not been examined by the prosecution and his opinion regarding the nature of injury on the person of the injured was also not sought. (iii) That no X-ray report of injured Sonu is available on the record, to Crl. Misc. No. A-776-MA of 2010 -3- indicate that the injury on his person was dangerous to life. On the basis of these factors, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents-accused were having any intention or knowledge that the injury caused by them to injured Sonu would have resulted into his death and thus, by giving benefit of doubt, the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant could not controvert the factual position with regard to the aforesaid three points. 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly come to the aforesaid conclusion, which in our opinion is neither perverse nor can be said to be unreasonable. 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. 6. The complainant has also challenged the order of sentence dated 10.3.2010 regarding releasing of the respondents-accused on probation of good conduct. After going through the order of sentence and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in Crl. Misc. No. A-776-MA of 2010 -4- the discretion exercised by the trial court, while releasing the accused on probation. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. 8. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 26, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ndj JUDGE