IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.610-MA of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 State of Haryana Applicant Versus Parveen and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.P.S.Punia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant ….. Jasbir Singh, J. State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 26.3.2009, acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them. FIR No.77 was registered against the respondents on 31.5.2005 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Criminal Misc. No.610-MA of 2009 2 Case of the prosecution, in brief, as noted by the trial Court in paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment, reads thus:- “….that on 31.5.2005, Kaptan Singh, the then Incharge of PP City, Jhajjar alongwith Balbir Singh Head Constable happened to be present at Dhaur Chowk, Jhajjar. In the meantime, a police party headed by Ranbir Singh ASI (PW12) of CIA Staff (II), Rohtak came there in a Govt. vehicle bearing No.HR-12-C 3721. Ranbir Singh ASI informed Kaptan Singh SI that he had received a secret information to the effect that accused Jaibir @ Jaila, Dharmender and Parveen, who were habitual of committing loot etc. were roaming in the area of P.S. Beri in Maruti Zen Car of white colour having no number plate and they were coming from Beri towards Jhajjar. Kaptan Singh SI arranged a private vehicle and held a picked on the ring-road of Jhajjar-Beri road. After sometime, a white colour zen car was seen coming from the side of Beri. On seeing the police party standing there on the ring road, the driver of the car stopped it, turned it towards Beri and managed to escape. Kaptan Singh SI and his companion Balbir Singh HC chased the car in the said private vehicle and the police party headed by ASI Ranbir Singh chased that car in the above mentioned Govt. vehicle. The said car entrusted in village Chimni and reached near Ramapatti Chopal of the said village. The occupant of the car, who was sitting on the rear seat, fired a shot at the police party. In the same way, the occupant of the car sitting on the Criminal Misc. No.610-MA of 2009 3 front seat by the side of the driver, also fired a shot at the police party. In defence, Vijay HC and Azad Singh Constable also fired one shot each from their respective weapons. Thereafter, the occupant of the car, who was sitting on the back seat, jumped from the running car, fell on the road and sustained minor injuries. He was nabbed by the police party. He was interrogated. He disclosed his identity. He was none-else but accused Jaivir @ Jaila. The said car stopped in the street of village Chimni when a stray cow came in front of it. The remaining two occupants of the car also managed to escape from the car. They were chased by the police party but to no use.” It is further case of the prosecution that respondent Jaivir @ Jaila, on interrogation, disclosed that the other two accused were Dharamender and Parveen. It was also disclosed by him that respondent No.3 was driving the car. A country made 315 bore pistol was recovered from respondent No.2, which was taken in possession against a recovery memo. One empty cartridge was recovered from the pistol. On personal search, three live cartridges of the same bore were also recovered from respondent No.2. The car, in which, respondents-accused were traveling, was also taken in possession. On intimation, formal FIR (Ex.P1/A) was recorded in police Station Beri against the respondents. The investigation was then transferred to SI Jagat Singh, CIA staff, Jhajjar on 1.6.2005, who arrested respondent No.1 on 28.6.2005. The matter was then taken up by ASI Kaptan Singh, who interrogated respondent No.1 on 29.6.2005, which led to Criminal Misc. No.610-MA of 2009 4 recovery of country made pistol of 315 bore along with a live cartridge, which was taken in possession against a recovery memo. Respondent No.3 surrendered before Rajbir Singh Head Constable, Police Station, Beri on 30.6.2005. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The respondents were charge sheeted, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution produced 14 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statements of the respondents 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. It was specifically stated by them that they were falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Sarpanch of their village due to party faction. However, they led no evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence, found that the prosecution was not successful in proving guilt of the respondents and accordingly, they were acquitted vide impugned judgment. After hearing the State counsel, this Court is convinced that no case is made out to interfere in the judgment of acquittal under challenge. The trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the respondents were habitual offenders (looters). It is an admitted fact that none was hurt in this case. The trial Court has rightly held that for want of non-joining of independent witnesses, case of the prosecution do not inspire confidence. Independent witnesses were available, however, for reasons best known to the investigating officer, Criminal Misc. No.610-MA of 2009 5 they were not joined in the investigation. The trial Court has further rightly held that version of the prosecution that Constables Azad Singh and Vijay Singh fired upon the respondents, was not proved on record. By taking note of the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot be reconciled, the trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused. The trial Court has also found that there was no intention of the respondents to kill, as alleged by the prosecution. At the time of arguments, the State counsel has failed to indicate any legal infirmity in the judgment under challenge. No misreading of evidence at the part of the trial Court has been indicated. 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) Criminal Misc. No.610-MA of 2009 6 SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against 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 15.12.2009 (Daya Chaudhary) gk Judge