CRMA No. 380-MA of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRMA No. 380-MA of 2010 Date of decision: 11.5.2010 Amarjeet ....... Appellant Versus Jacob Bhatti and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Complainant-appellant filed a complaint under Sections 323, 324, 452, 387, 390, 506, 148, 149 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) against the respondents. Vide impugned judgment dated 1.8.2009, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. Hence, the complainant has filed the present application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the orders mentioned above. CRMA No. 380-MA of 2010 2 The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.1 of its judgment, reads thus:- “ Complainant has filed the present complaint under Sections 323, 324, 452, 387, 390, 506, 148, 149 read with Section 120-B IPC against the accused on the allegations that he is resident of village Dhogri. On 4.10.2001, the above named accused along with 4-5 other persons illegally and forcibly trespassed his house at about 6.00 A.M. When complainant was sitting in his room and his mother was preparing tea for him. Accused Jacob and Malkiat were armed with hockeys and all the accused immediately entering covered the complainant and his mother. The accused No.1 broke the glasses, utensils and other household articles of the complainant with the hockey and abused the complainant and his mother. The accused No.3 caught hold of the complainant whereas accused No.2 gripped the neck of the mother of the complainant with the bottom round of the hockey. Accused No.1 gave a blow of hockey on the shoulder of the complainant's mother and gave a hard kick on her stomach. The above said accused started collecting the articles lying in the house of the complainant and while leaving they took away with them JVC Video Model No.120, portable Stereo and one CRMA No. 380-MA of 2010 3 briefcase full of clothes. Complainant cried for help and hearing him one Mr. Anayat Masih and Mohan Lal came at the spot but on their intervention and the accused ran away from the spot. Matter was reported to the police but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present application for grant of leave to appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them on the ground that there were discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses. The complaint was filed after more than one month of the alleged occurrence which had taken place on 4.10.2001. Hence, the discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses gained significance. It has been observed by the learned trial Court that an FIR was registered against Amarjeet Singh and his father at the instance of daughter of Jacob Bhatti and due to this reason, the respondents had been falsely involved in this case. Learned trial Court has further held that the complaint is a counter blast to FIR No.172 dated 23.9.2001 under Sections 406, 420, 498-A, 494, 495 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur. The appellant had failed to establish his ownership qua the articles allegedly stolen by the respondents. Learned trial Court has further observed that it was highly improbable that in the presence of large number of persons gathered CRMA No. 380-MA of 2010 4 at the spot, respondents would have been successful in taking away the articles belonging to the appellant. The appellant had failed to prove on record any photograph qua the damaged articles nor had been successful in leading any evidence qua the offence of criminal intimidation. The complainant had failed to examine his mother and had also failed to lead any medical evidence qua the injuries caused by the respondents. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them, are sound reasons. 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 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.” Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any CRMA No. 380-MA of 2010 5 mis-reading of evidence on record. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 11, 2010 anita