Criminal Appeal No.865-SBA of 1998 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.865-SBA of 1998 Date of decision : 22.8.2008 State of Punjab ....Appellant Versus Balwinder Singh and others ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. B.S.Sar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. The prosecution allegation (in the statement Ex. PW3/B of first informant Chhota Singh) was that he and his son Sukhwinder Singh were in the process of irrigating their Tarawala field when respondents- accused (Balwinder Singh armed with a Gandasa, Surinder Singh armed with a Kahi, and Jagwinder Singh armed with a Soti) came over there and made a grievance as to why they were irrigating their field as it was their turn of water. When the first informant and his son denied the allegation and averred that it was, infact, their turn only to irrigate their land with the canal water, respondents/accused injured them with their respective weapons of offence. The defence plea was that Chhota singh sustained injuries by a fall from a tractor. In the finding of exoneration, learned Trial Magistrate drew sustenance from the discordance between the medical evidence and ocular presentation and the non production of the shirt worn by Chhota Criminal Appeal No.865-SBA of 1998 -2- **** Singh at the time of impugned occurrence to prove that it did contain cuts corresponding to the seat of injuries. It was also noticed that the prosecution had not been able to prove that Chhota Singh did actually have his turn to have the canal water for irrigating his land at the relevant time. Learned State counsel is not in a position to challenge the correctness of the factual premise upon which the above observations made by the learned Trial Court procee. In that view of things, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court had appreciated evidence in capricious or perverse manner. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it is so ordered accordingly. August 22, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Report : Yes/No