CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 Date of decision: 13.10.2011 Gurjodh Singh ....... Appellant Versus Hazoor Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. **** SABINA, J. The respondents were tried for an offence under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). The trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 22.3.2011 acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. Hence, the complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the said part of the judgment dated 22.3.2011. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.10.2004, three medico legal reports qua injuries suffered by Surjit Kaur, Harkanwaljit CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 2 Singh and Gurjodh Singh were received in Police Station Ghoman. On 28.10.2004, ASI Sukhwinder Singh recorded the statement of injured Harkanwaljit Singh after he was declared fit to make the statement and on the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered. The complainant stated in his statement that a few days ago, a dispute had arisen between him and his uncles regarding partition of land. A compromise was got effected between the parties with the help of village panchayat. Despite the compromise, his uncles nourished a grudge against the complainant party. Kuldeep Kaur instigated her brother Kanwaljit Singh against the complainant party. On 23.10.2004, at about 10 pm, complainant along with his brother Gurjodh Singh and mother Surjit Kaur were talking to each other in their house. In the meantime, Kanwaljit Singh knocked at their door. When the door was opened, Kanwaljit Singh and Gurwinder Singh @ Kaku Shah armed with datars, Hazoor Singh armed with a dang and Kuldeep Kaur and Sukhwant Kaur empty handed and 7-8 unidentified persons armed with weapons entered their house. Kuldeep Kaur and Sukhwant Kaur raised a lalkara that the complainant party be taught a lesson for wrongly partitioning the land. Kanwaljit Singh gave a datar blow above the eyes of Gurjodh Singh. Gurwinder Singh gave a datar blow on the fingers of right hand of Gurjodh Singh. Kanwaljit Singh gave a datar blow on the right side of the head of Gurjodh Singh. Gurwinder Singh and Kanwaljit Singh gave datar blows on the upper side of eyes of Gurjodh Singh. The un- identified persons inflicted multiple injuries on the person of Gurjodh Singh with dangs, sottas etc. Hazoor Singh gave a dang blow on the person of Gurjodh Singh. Kanwaljit Singh gave a datar blow on his CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 3 left elbow and fingers of his right hand. When Surjit Kaur tried to rescue then, Kanwaljit Singh gave a datar blow on her left wrist. Hazoor Singh gave a dang blow on the left arm of his mother. Sharnjit Kaur, his sister, went inside the room due to fear and had witnessed the occurrence through the window of the room. Many persons had gathered at the spot. Accused damaged their television, windows and doors etc. Accused then ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. After completion of investigation and other necessary formalities, challan was presented against accused Hazoor Singh and Kanwaljit Singh. During trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Kuldeep Kaur, Sukhwant Kaur and Gurwinder Singh to face the trial as additional accused. The said application was allowed. Sukhwant Kaur was declared a proclaimed offender. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined eleven witnesses. Accused Hazoor Singh, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prayed that he had no relationship with the aggrieved family or with the co-accused. He had been falsely involved in this case due to party faction in the village. Kuldeep Kaur, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prayed that she was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case due to party faction and previous enmity. She had been found innocent during investigation. Accused examined two witnesses in their defence. The trial Court vide judgment dated 22.3.2001 acquitted accused/ respondents Hazoor Singh and Kuldeep Kaur. Accused Kanwaljit Singh and Gurwinderjit Singh were convicted and CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 4 sentenced for offence under Section 307, 326, 324/ 34 IPC vide judgment/ order dated 22.3.2011/ 23.11.2011. Hence, the present application by the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed. As per the prosecution case, so far as respondent Hazoor Singh is concerned, he had given a dang blow on the person of Gurjodh Singh. He had also given a dang blow on the left arm of Surjit Kaur. Kuldeep Kaur had raised a lalkara that the complainant party be taught a lesson. The trial Court has observed that the medical record had been tampered with by the Medical Officer in connivance with the complainant party because as per the documents available on record, Surjit Kaur was admitted in the hospital on 24.10.2004 at about 4 p.m. Similarly as per documents available on record, Harkanwaljit Singh had reached the hospital at 4 p.m.. The duration of injuries of both the said injured was mentioned in their medico legal reports, as within six hours. The occurrence had taken at place at 10 p.m. on 23.10.2004. Since injured Harkanwaljit Singh and Surjit Kaur had reached the hospital at 4 p.m. then the fact that they had suffered injuries in the occurrence which had taken place at 10 p.m. on 23.10.2004 was belied. Although the doctor had tried to explain that the injured had reached the hospital at 4 am. and it had been wrongly mentioned in the documents that they had arrived at 4 p.m. but the said explanation was rightly rejected by the trial Court as it was against the documentary evidence available on record. So far as CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 5 Gurjodh Singh is concerned, he had reached the hospital at 4 a.m. and was examined at 4.30 a.m.. The trial Court, thus, rightly held that the prosecution had failed to establish the fact that injured Surjit Kaur and Harkanwaljit Singh had suffered injuries in the alleged occurrence. Hazoor Singh was not related to either of the parties. Hazoor Singh admittedly belonged to another village which was at a distance of 45 kms from the place of occurrence. So far as respondent Kuldeep Kaur was concerned, she had allegedly raised a lalkara at the time of occurrence. During investigation respondents were found innocent. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly concluded that the possibility that Hazoor Singh and Kuldeep Kaur had been falsely involved in this case could not be ruled out. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Islam 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) 73, as under:- “ 16. The golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent. 17. The principle to be followed by appellate court considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 6 and substantial reasons to do so.” It has been further held by the Apex Court in Rukia Begum and others vs. State of Karnataka 2011 (4) SCC 779, as under:- “ 13. It is worthwhile mentioning here that the trial court on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, so far as Rukia Begum and Nasreen are concerned. It is trite that where two views on the evidence are reasonably possible and the trial court has taken a view favouring acquittal, the High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it was trying the case, it would have taken an alternative view and convicted the accused. The High court while hearing appeal against the judgment of acquittal is possessed of all the power of appellate court and nothing prevents it to appraise evidence and come to a conclusion different than that of the trial court but while doing so it shall bear in mind that presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration. There must be compelling and weighty reason for the High Court to come to a conclusion different than that of the CRMA No. 565-MA of 2011 7 trial court. The view taken by the trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and a possible view and, therefore in our opinion, the High Court erred in setting aside their acquittal.” The reasons given by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any mis- reading of evidence on record by the trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) (SABINA) JUDGE JUDGE October 13, 2011 anita