Crl. Appeal No.66-MA of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.66-MA of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 26, 2010 Smt. Surjit Kaur ........Appellant Versus Dr. Shiv Pal and others ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant. SABINA, J. Complainant Smt. Surjit Kaur filed a complaint under Sections 323,427,452,506 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') read with Section 34 of IPC against the respondents. Vide impugned judgment dated 9.10.2009, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. The complainant has filed this application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, reads as under :- “2. Brief facts of the complaint are that accused are having an evil eye on her valuable property and are out to grab the same. Complainant had obtained stay order from the court against accused No.1 and 3 with regard to dispute over wall abutting to the property of the Crl. Appeal No.66-MA of 2010 (O&M) 2 complainant. Accused pressurized her to withdraw the same, failing which threatened to teach her a lesson. All the accused alongwith one Bakshish Singh and five to six unidentified persons entered the house on 26.9.2004 at 10.30 A.M. exhorting Lalkaras. Fearing, complainant rushed to bolt the door from inside but accused forcibly barged into the court yard of the house of complainant and hurled filthy abuses. Complainant tried to run away to take shelter in one of the rooms of her house but accused Sadhu Ram caught hold from her hair, and accused Lakshar Singh caught hold from the left arm of the complainant. Sadhu Ram pulled hair of the complainant, and she was about to fall when Lakshar Singh caught hold of her arm and she did not fall. Accused Lashkar Singh twisted the arm of the complainant and accused Shiv Pal Singh exhorted to kill the complainant. All the accused dragged her out of the house in the street and manhandled her. Then Shri Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Joginder Pal hearing the noise of the complainant came to her rescue and all the accused alongwith their accomplices fled away threatening to teach her a lesson at some other time. On their way back they hurled stones on the house of the complainant and broke window panes and ventilators and caused damage to the wooden chair and table lying in the court yard. Thereafter, she was medically examined and matter was also referred to the police but police did not Crl. Appeal No.66-MA of 2010 (O&M) 3 take any action. Hence this complaint.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant application deserves dismissal. The learned trial Court in para 21 of its judgment has observed as under:- “21. So all these discrepancies though minor in nature but collectively make the case of the complainant doubtful moreso, when the witnesses have differed in reporting the time of occurrence, the number of persons who had trespassed into the house of complainant, the number of injuries sustained by the complainant, the duration during which the occurrence took place, the hospital where the complainant was hospitalized and the persons who had hospitalized her and further the hospital where she was hospitalized. Had complainant been hospitalized for five to seven days as alleged by her and had she sustained any fracture on her arm, complainant would have brought forward the medical evidence to substantiate her plea but she has failed to bring the medical evidence on record which makes the case of the complainant doubtful. Furthermore the complainant and her witnesses alleges that matter was reported to the police and complainant has go on to say that as many as five hundred complaints have been given but she has failed to bring on record even a single complaint to show that she had reported the matter to the police. So in these circumstances Crl. Appeal No.66-MA of 2010 (O&M) 4 also the case of the complainant gets rendered doubtful. Complainant has in her examination in chief only attributed one injury that too Lashkar Singh (Since P.O) for breaking her arm and she had also stated that Sandhu Ram had caught her from her hairs. Apart from this no injury had been attributed to any of the accused and it cannot be expected that eight to nine persons who had trespassed into the house of the complainant would just leave the house without inflicting serious injuries on the complainant and it further cannot be expected that complainant would remain hospitalized for five to seven days in private hospital for minor injuries. So all these facts make the occurrence reported by the complainant to be a doubtful one, benefit of which must go to the accused.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, are sound reasons. 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 Crl. Appeal No.66-MA of 2010 (O&M) 5 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.” Learned counsel has failed to show any mis-reading of evidence on record by the trial Court. Hence, no ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (SABINA) May 26, 2010 JUDGE Anand