Criminal Appeal No.299-SBA of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.299-SBA of 2002 Date of Decision: 23.8.2010 State of Haryana .Appellant Versus Ghisa Ram 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 appellant. Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate for Mr. Rameshwar Malik, 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 for offences punishable under sections 148, 447/149, 323/149 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the statement of injured Desh Ram made before the Investigating Officer are that during the year 1992 he and his brother, namely, Parbhati, had purchased 139 Kanals 9 Marlas of land from Jaila, resident of village Kharkhara (husband of Chandori daughter of Surja resident of village Maroli) situated within the revenue estate of village Maroli. Regarding this land, dispute between Jaila and Jai Narain was pending before this court, wherein Jaila and others won the case and they got the land registered in the name of their five brothers. In compliance with the order dated 12.6.1997 passed by this Criminal Appeal No.299-SBA of 2002 2 court, the administration and the police got them possession of that land. On 12.6.1998 at about 7.00/7.30 P.M. Desh Ram along with his brothers, namely, Parbhati, Sher Singh and Rajender were present in their fields and working there. Rajender was ploughing the land with the tractor. In the meanwhile, accused Ram Chander armed with a Barchhi, Het Ram having a lathi, Basanta Ram, Sher Singh, Indraj and Krishan armed with lathis, Ghisa Ram armed with a Kulhari and Banwari armed with a lathi came to the field in furtherance of their common intention and entered into their fields which was ploughed with the tractor. At this, complainant party asked them that they had purchased this land and the field belonged to them, whereupon accused raised a lalkara and opened an attack on them. Ram Chander gave a Barchhi blow on the head of Des Raj from its reverse side, blood oozed from the head and he fell down. While he was lying on the ground, all the accused persons caused injuries with kicks. His brother Sher Singh was also inflicted injuries. They raised an alarm which attracted PWs Bani Singh and Dharambir, who were present nearby the fields and saved them from the clutches of the accused persons. The accused persons while leaving the place of occurrence threatened them with dire consequences. On the basis of the statement of Desh Ram recorded by ASI Balbir Singh, offence under sections 148/149/323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. Since FIR No.338 dated 13.6.1998 was registered regarding the same occurrence, therefore, he did not proceed to record a separate formal FIR and recommended that the statement of Des Ram be treated as FIR and thereafter investigation was started. After completion of necessary formalities, accused were sent up for trial. Accused were charge sheeted under Sections 148, 447/149,323/149 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Appeal No.299-SBA of 2002 3 Prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses and thereafter closed its evidence after tendering certain documents. In their statements 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 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 in not taking into consideration the testimony of the injured eye witnesses in its correct perspective, especially the statements of Desh Ram and Sher Singh, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel has further contended that the learned court below fell in error in holding that the earlier statements made by the aforesaid two witnesses can not be given credence, especially when these witnesses have owned their affidavits that 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 the injured eye witnesses before the learned court below whereby they did not support the prosecution version can not be given much weighage 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 Criminal Appeal No.299-SBA of 2002 4 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 on the strength of the testimony of injured as well as eye witnesses, namely, Desh Ram and Sher Singh, who had earlier supported the case of the prosecution but later on when they were re-called for further cross-examination, they did not corroborate the version of the prosecution by placing their affidavits on the record that the previous statements made by them in the court were made under pressure and were not given voluntarily. The view expressed by the learned court below in not taking into consideration the earlier statements made by the eye witnesses that no reliance can be placed in absence of corroboration from other eye witnesses, can not at all be said to be unjustified. 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 Criminal Appeal No.299-SBA of 2002 5 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 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