Criminal Appeal No.435-DBA of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.435-DBA of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.8.2010 State of Haryana .Appellant Versus Parbhati Lal and others ..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present:- Mr. S.S.Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant-appellant. Mr. N.K.Sanghi, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sanghi and Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, Advocate for the respondents. H.S.BHALLA, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Narnaul, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt for offences punishable under sections 148,323/149,325/149,447/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.6.1998 on receipt of a ruqa from Civil Hospital, Narnaul regarding the admission of Banwari Lal and Ram Chander injured in the hospital, ASI Balbir Singh along with other police officials reached Civil Hospital, Narnaul, where the doctor declared the injured unfit to make the statement. On 13.6.1998 ASI Balbir Singh again went to Civil Hospital Narnaul in connection with the investigation of the case, FIR No.338 of 1998 under sections 148, 149,323 and 506 IPC and after obtaining opinion from the doctor that Banwari Lal was fit to make a statement whereas Ram Criminal Appeal No.435-DBA of 2001 2 Chander was opined to be unfit to make statement, he recorded the statement of Banwari Lal stating therein that he was the resident of village Maroli and was an agriculturist. Chandori, the daughter of the elder brother of his father, was married with Jaila resident of Kharkhara. The elder brother of the father of Banwari had no male issue. Jaila son of Surja owned 139 Kanals 8 Marlas of land in village Maroli at three places in the revenue estate of village Maroli. After the death of Surja, Smt. Chandori (since deceased) became owner in possession of that land. Parbhati son of Nanag, residents of village Hasanpur, purchased the land from Jaila during the year 1992. A civil suit was pending between Banwari and others and Parbhati and others. Complainant party had taken stay order from the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. On 12.6.1998 Rajender son of Nanag, resident of village Hassanpur was ploughing this land with a tractor. Desh Raj son of Nanag was carrying a country made pistol. Parbhati was armed with a lathi; Sher Singh was armed with a Barchhi; Siri Chand was having an iron rod with him; Om Parkash accused was armed with a lathi and two others also with them belonging to village Peepa Nangal were also armed with lathis. They all had a common intention to plough the land with the complainant party They along with Ghisa Ram and Ram Chander went to the field and asked Parbhati and others not to plough the land with the tractor. At this, accused abused them and in furtherance of their common intention started inflicting the injuries to the complainant party. Sher Singh inflicted a Barchhi blow on the head of Banwari, Siri Chand inflicted a blow of iron rod on his hand and Parbhati gave a lathi blow on the right shoulder of Banwari. They all inflicted injuries to Ram Chander. At this complainant party raised an alarm which attracted Ram Avtar and Parbhu Dayal and some other persons who separated them, otherwise accused would have caused more injuries. Accused sped away from the spot after giving a threat to kill them if they Criminal Appeal No.435-DBA of 2001 3 again came to enter that land. On the basis of this statement, a case under sections 148/149/323 and 506 IPC was registered against the accused. On account of receipt of injuries, Ram Chander died and offence under Section 302 IPC was added later on. He sent the same statement to the Police Station, whereupon a formal FIR was recorded. Investigation started. Accused were arrested. After completion of necessary formalities, accused were sent up for trial. Accused were charge sheeted under Sections 148/323/149,325/149, 302/149 and 447/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and thereafter closed its evidence after tendering certain documents. In their statement recorded under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. However, they did not produce any evidence in defence. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the appellants at some length and with their able assistance have also gone through the evidence available on the record as also the findings recorded by the learned court below. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State has strenuously argued that the learned court below fell in error in acquitting the accused respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt in not taking into consideration the ocular as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellant-State in its correct perspective, especially the statements of Banwari Lal (PW-3) and Ghisa Ram (PW-6), who are injured as well as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel has further contended that the learned court below fell in error in Criminal Appeal No.435-DBA of 2001 4 holding that the earlier statements made by PWs Banwari Lal and Ghisa Ram can not be relied upon, especially when these witnesses have given their affidavits that accused persons did not cause any injury to any one as also Ram Chander deceased in their presence and the previous statements made by them before the learned trial Court were made under pressure. Learned counsel has further brought to the notice of this court that the subsequent statements made by these eye witnesses before the learned court below whereby they did not support the prosecution version can not be accepted resulting in acquittal of the accused-respondents. On these premises, learned State counsel prayed for conviction of the accused respondents. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We are not convinced to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel. The contentions raised by the learned counsel, in our considered view, have been dealt with by the learned court below in a comprehensive manner giving sound reasoning therein on the basis of material available on the record. Having analyzed the entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses available on the record as also the finding recorded by the learned court below, we are of the considered view that the learned court below is right in acquitting the accused respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt on the strength of the testimony of injured as well as eye witnesses, namely Banwari Lal (PW-3) and Ghisa Ram (PW-6), who had earlier supported the case of the prosecution but later on when they were re-summoned for further cross-examination, they did not corroborate the version of the prosecution by producing their affidavits on the record that accused persons did not cause any injury to any one nor any injury to Ram Chander in their presence and that the previous statements made by them in the court were made under pressure of police. The view expressed by Criminal Appeal No.435-DBA of 2001 5 the learned court below in not taking into consideration the earlier statements made by the eye witnesses that they did not carry any weightage in absence of corroboration from other eye witnesses, can not at all be said to be unjustified, which may warrant interference by this court. We are further of the view that approach of the learned trial court in holding that the statements of the eye witnesses at the most aroused suspicion but the suspicion howsoever strong may be can not take the place of proof, in our considered view, is correct and finds favour with this court. We are further of the view that even if two views are possible, there is no ground to set aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned court below. The Scope of appeal under section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, is wide enough to allow the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. However, there are several cases in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the courts must be careful in reversing the judgment or order of acquittal and that the order of acquittal should not be interfered with merely because another view than the one taken by the trial court is possible. In Shingara Singh Versus State of Haryana and another with Subha Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 124 : (2004 Cri LJ 828), it has been held that “ where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of evidence on record, the one that favours the accused must be accepted. It was also held that in any event in a case of acquittal, if the view of the trial court is possible, reasonable view on the basis of evidence on record, interference by the High court may not be justified.” In C. Antony V. K.G. Raghavan Nair reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 182: (2003 Cri LJ 411), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “though the appellate court has full power to re-appreciate Criminal Appeal No.435-DBA of 2001 6 evidence but without coming to a definite conclusion that findings by the trial court are perverse, it can not substitute the findings of the trial court by taking a totally different perspective and convict the accused. When such is the possible in case of appeal against acquittal, stronger grounds are needed to interfere with the order of acquittal by exercising the power of revision. In the light of what has been discussed above, an inevitable conclusion is that that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant- State against judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Narnaul, whereby accused respondents were acquitted of the charges, being without any merit, fails and is hereby dismissed. ( H.S.BHALLA ) JUDGE 23.8.2010 ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) VK JUDGE