IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 68-MA of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : July 15, 2009 Raj Kumar ....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 4647 of 2009 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, delay of 92 days in filing the application for grant of special leave to appeal is condoned. Criminal Misc. No. 68-MA of 2009 This is application by complainant under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure for leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 22.8.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 6 stand acquitted in criminal complaint instituted by the appellant under sections 323, 324, 506 read with section 34 IPC. Learned trial Magistrate has assigned cogent reasons for acquitting respondent nos. 2 to 6. In the complaint time of occurrence was Criminal Misc. No. 68-MA of 2009 (O&M) -2- stated to be 1.30 PM but in evidence, occurrence was stated to have taken placed at 11/11.30 AM. Medico legal report of the injured-complainant was also not proved. Even statement of the complainant himself contradicted the complaint. Moreover, in cross case relating to the same occurrence instituted by Anil Kumar respondent no. 5 herein, appellant Raj Kumar stands convicted. The complainant was confronted with improvements/contradictions made by him in the witness box over the allegations made in the complaint. Three generations of the respondents have been implicated i.e. Amar Singh, his two sons and two grand sons for alleged simple injuries suffered by the complainant. There are also material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant had also earlier instituted two other criminal complaints against accused party and they were acquitted in both of them. In view of the aforesaid, I find that no ground for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal is made out. It may be noticed that if two views are possible, the acquittal cannot be reversed if the other view is possible. The complainant himself stands convicted in the cross case relating to the same occurrence. In view of aforesaid, petition leave to appeal is dismissed being without any merit. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 15, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'