1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 784-MA of 2007. Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 *** Sheopal Singh .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sandeep Thakkar, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The complainant has sought the leave of the Court to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri dated 11.10.2007 in respect of the private respondents. The private respondents were tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri for the commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of complaint got instituted by the applicant-appellant with the allegations that on 3.8.1999 at about 10/10:30 a.m. They all in furtherance of their common intention while doing lurking house trespass by entering into his house, committed mischief by causing wrongful loss to him, caused injuries to them and further criminally intimidated them. During the proceedings the complainant examined himself as PW3 besides examining his wife Bimla as PW1 nad Jagdish son of Om Parkash as PW2. After the trial the learned trial court, finding the version of the complainant as improbable and not sufficient to prove the complicity 2 of the accused-respondents in the commission of offence acquitted them. Dissatisfied with the same, the instant leave to file an appeal has been sought. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that only interested and closely related witnesses were produced by the complainant. Admittedly, PW2 Jagdish was the real uncle while PW1 Bimla was the wife of the complainant, whose statements were found to be discrepant and contradictory with each other qua the tenor and manner in which alleged occurrence took place. Bhana Ram, admittedly present at the spot was not produced before the Court. Even very general allegations were made against the respondents without attributing specific role to them as to who had inflicted injuries and extended threat to them. In absence of any medical proof with regard to the alleged injuries caused to the complainant and his wife and the costs of property alleged to be damaged by the respondents, it was rightly held that the complaint is counter-blast to the case registered against the complainant in which Duli Chand-respondent was prosecution witness and deposed against him. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial court is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant leave asked for and the application is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 11,2008 Jiten