IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.A-570-MA of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 29.09.2011 Harkamaljit Singh …..Applicant versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.K.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the applicant Jasbir Singh, J. Against respondent Nos.2 to 5, an FIR No.7 dated 8.1.2008 was recorded for commission of offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 379, 148, 149 IPC. It was allegation against them that on 7.1.2008, they had caused injuries to the applicant. The trial Court has noted the following facts regarding case of the prosecution:- “Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 7.1.2009, on receipt of one MLR pertaining to injured Harkamaljit Singh son of Rachhpal Singh, HC Sushil Kumar alongwith other police officials reached at Civil Hospital, Jandiala and taken the opinion of the doctor, who opined the injured to be unfit to make the statement. On 8.1.2008, SI Davinder Singh Crl.Misc.No.A-570-MA of 2011(O&M) alongwith other police officials reached at Civil Hospital and after obtaining the opinion of doctor, got recorded the statement of injured Harkamalpreet Singh son of Rachhpal Singh to the effect that he is resident of village Jandiala and due to the reason of his father and mother being retired teachers and his brother being in abroad, he is looking after the work of agriculture. On 7.1.2008, he was coming from Bazaar of Jandiala to his house after having medicine of his father Rachhpal Singh and when he reached near the Gurdwara of Patti Sahan Ki, Parminder Singh @ Pilla son of Kehar Singh, Pala son of Sarabjit, Prabhjot Singh @ Pinka son of Bhupinder Singh, Malkit Singh @ Kita son of Avtar Singh alongwith one unknown person were already standing in the chowk and they stopped him and in the meantime, Parminder Singh @ Pilla raised Lalkara for making quarrel on the day of Parbhatferi. On this Pala son of Sarabjit Singh gave sword blow which hit on the right side of his head Parminder Singh gave sword blow which hit on his right side of his head due to which he fell down on the earth and in the same condition Kitu gave blow with his base which hit on his back and unknown person also gave him base bat blow which hit on his left leg on the upper side of ankle, Kitu again gave base bat blow which hit on the upper side of knee of right leg and unknown person again gave base bat blow which hit him below the knee of left leg. Then Pala gave his sword blow which hit him below the elbow of right arm. Then Kitu gave base bat blow which hit on his left hand. Then he raised roula 2 Crl.Misc.No.A-570-MA of 2011(O&M) and in the mean time, Maninder Singh son of Kamaljit Singh came at the spot and thereafter all the assailants ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons, which snatching his wrist watch, which was worn by him in his wrist, one gold chain, one mobile phone. He was taken to civil hospital by his father Rachhpal Singh.” The investigating officer SI Devinder Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing other formalities, put in the final report in Court for trial. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate gave a finding that the case is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and accordingly it was committed for trial to the above Court vide order dated 10.6.2008. The prosecution produced seven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statements of respondent Nos.2 to 5 were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. As per statement made by Dr.Amarjeet Singh Bhatti (PW6), who had medico-legally examined the injured complainant on 8.1.2008, eight injuries were found at his person, however, all were declared simple in nature. On X-ray of Skull, right hand and right knee, no fracture was found. Dr.Amarjit Singh Bhatti also stated that possibility cannot be ruled out that the injuries on the person of Harkamaljit Singh could be the result of a fall or by an accident. After noticing evidence on record, the trial Court rightly came to a conclusion that the applicant-complainant has falsely implicated the private respondents in this criminal case. It was case of the complainant 3 Crl.Misc.No.A-570-MA of 2011(O&M) that the respondents-accused had taken away his watch etc. The trial Court noted that there is nothing on record to prove ownership of the articles allegedly snatched from the complainant by the private respondents. The trial Court also noted major discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Investigating officer Davinder Singh (PW5) has stated that when Sushil Kumar Head Constable visited the hospital on 7.1.2008, the injured was not fit to make a statement. To the contrary, record maintained by Dr.Amarjeet Singh Bhatti (PW6) shows that the injured remained conscious throughout. The trial Court also indicated many discrepancies in the conduct of the investigation by SI Davinder Singh (PW5). This Court is of the opinion that in view of above, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The view formed by the trial Court was justified and is as per evidence on record. Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. 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 interference in an appeal against 4 Crl.Misc.No.A-570-MA of 2011(O&M) 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.” Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 29.09.2011 (Sabina) gk Judge 5