CRM-A No. 150-MA of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A No.150-MA of 2011 Date of decision:- 09.05.2011 Tarsem Lal ....Appellant Vs. Surjit Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr.Karambir Singh Kahlon, Advocate, for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J. This is an appeal filed by Tarsem Lal complainant- appellant (herein referred as 'the appellant') against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 01.06.2004 in the evening, the appellant-Tarsem Lal along with his wife, after taking medicine from Dr. Kewal, were proceeding to their village Johlan on foot. At about 8.30 P.M., when they reached near I.T.I. Girls College, situated within the area of Harsi Pind, the respondents waylaid them and restrained them not to proceed to their village. Thereafter, they gave injuries with the iron rods to the appellant. The appellant was also given kick and fist blows at the hands of the accused. The appellant did not go out of the house on the day of occurrence, but on the next day, father of the appellant Shri Bhajan Singh came and shifted the complainant to the hospital, where he was medico-legally examined. DDR No.10 dated 04.06.2004 was recorded with regard to the occurrence. Since the police did not register the case, therefore, the CRM-A No. 150-MA of 2011 2 complaint was filed on 13.09.2004. The trial Court, after examining the entire evidence, acquitted the accused-respondents. The occurrence in this case took place on 01.06.2004, whereas the report with regard to the occurrence was lodged on 04.06.2004 and the complaint was filed on 13.09.2004. The delay in lodging the complaint remains unexplained. There is no evidence that any of the injuries on the person of Tarsem Lal was dangerous to life. Thus, it appears that the police recorded the DDR No.10 dated 04.06.2004, obviously for the reason that no cognizable offence was made out. Had any of the injuries been grievous or dangerous to life, then the police must have obtained the opinion of the Doctor for going ahead with the investigation. The true story in the present case appears to have been concealed for the reason that the parties were litigating between each other. Tarsem Lal (PW-3) has admitted in his cross- examination that a litigation was going on between his father and Jarnail Singh, which relates to the land measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas. Thus, the case appears to have been instituted in order to settle the old score. The impugned judgment appears to have been passed after due application of mind and proper appreciation of evidence. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment, we have no reason to form a different opinion than what was formed by the trial Court. In view of the above, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE JUDGE 09.05.2011 ajp