Criminal Misc. No.78 -MA 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No.78 -MA 2008 Date of decision : 20.8.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Thkaur Tirth Singh and another ...Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No.682 of 2008 Natha Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. J.S. Sekhon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. A.S.Bornil, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 682 of 2008). S. D. ANAND, J. The prosecution presentation in case (FIR No. 146 of 2005 under Sections 323/325/341 & 506 IPC, Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana agaisnt respondents Thakur Singh and Balwant Kaur, aged 37 years and 71 years respectively,) was invalidated by the learned Trial Magistrate by giving them benefit of doubt. In recording that finding, the learned Trial Magistrate drew sustenance Criminal Misc. No.78 -MA 2008 -2- **** from the following facts:- “As the thing stand out no independent witness was examined, only eye witness examined is Surinder Singh who is son of the complainant and he lives at Ludhiana. No person came to the place of occurrence. Except his son Surinder Singh, who lives at Ludhiana. That is true that public generally reluctant to come forward and deposed against the accused being unnecessary legal complication and to avoid personal enmity with accused but in the life of our villages where the society is closely knitted and public generally gathered on even a small incident. But in the case in hand as per deposition of PW-1 Natha Singh complainant and PW-2 Surinder singh eye witness, no person has come to the spot despite of the fact that the complainant was calling MARDITTA MARDITTA and his son heard that alarm approximately from 100 to 150 feet. This is not practical when PWE-2 Surinder Singh had heard alarm from 100 to 150 feet, no other person heard the same and came to the spot despite the fact that there are houses of Jagjit Singh, Harbant Singh and Amarjit Singh and further place of occurrence is a very busy thoroughfare as stated by the complainant Natha Singh himself. xxx xxx xxx No independent witness produced nor even owner of Criminal Misc. No.78 -MA 2008 -3- **** house prosecution story doubtful. xxx xxx xxx And above all it was stated by Doctor that injuries a could be result of friendly hand except injury no. 4 regarding which it was stated that it was could not be self inflicted but at the same time freshness of injury no. 4 was uncertain, and at the same time PW-4 stated that there is no bone injury to the right side of the chest (injury no.; 4 is on chest) and from assiduous evaluation of the evidence it was nowhere in the evidence of the complainant Natha Singh PW-1 that any of the accused gave any blow to his chest as he stated that BOTH THE ACCUSED HAD ALSO TORN HIS CLOTHS AND GAVE FIST BLOWS AND HE GOT HURT ON BOTH HANDS AND RIGHT THIGH AND ON HIS BACK. There was no mention of any blow on his chest and further PW-2 Surinder Singh stated that I cannot TELL WHICH INJURY WAS ATTRIBUTED TO WHOM. The State of Punjab has filed Criminal Misc. No. 78-MA of 2008 to get that finding of acquittal set at naught; while Natha Singh first informant/complainant has filed Criminal Revision No. 682 of 2008 for that very relief. It requires pertinent notice that respondent Balwant Kaur is a female aged about 71 years. It would appear improbable that a female of that age would have participated in the impugned Criminal Misc. No.78 -MA 2008 -4- **** occurrence. The testimony given by the Medical Officer ( quoted in an earlier part of this judgment) has also very significant bearing on the bonafides of the prosecution presentation. The fact that no independent witness was examined to corroborate the self-serving statement of first informant and his son is also an important facet which indicates that all does not appear to be well with the prosecution plea which is not free from the shadow of doubt. It was conceded at the bar that it is in evidence that PW- 2 Surdender Singh, son of first informant, is a practicing lawyer at Ludhiana. It was,thus, for him to explain how exactly he happened to be in the village at those early hours of the day. In the totality of circumstances of the case, I find that learned trial Court had taken a possible view on the basis of material available on the file. The appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be capricious or perverse in any manner. Dismissed. August 20, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Report : Yes/No