CRM-A No. 931-MA of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A No. 931-MA of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.10.2010 State of Haryana ...Appellant versus Gulab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana for the appellant-State. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this petition, is that originally in the wake of statement of complainant-Shakunatla, the present case was registered against respondent-accused, vide FIR No. 300 dated 01.08.2001, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Palwal. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Magistrate acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 22.04.2010. 3. The State of Haryana-appellant did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial Court and filed the instant petition for the grant of leave to appeal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 4. Having heard the learned State counsel, having gone through the record, with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in this petition. CRM-A No. 931-MA of 2010 (O&M) -1- 5. As is evident from the record that the trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent-accused, vide impugned judgment of acquittal, the operative part of which is as under: - “Having heard the arguments advanced from both the sides, this court is quite convinced with the arguments advanced by Ld. defence counsel Sh. Kuldeep Singh. The authorities relied upon by Ld. Counsel Sh. Kuldeep Singh are also relevant and applicable on the facts of the present case. The statement of PW2 and PW3 are contradictory with the medical report Ex.PW4/A which has been duly proved with the testimony of PW4 Dr. Sanjiv Bhagat. Moreover, the x-ray report Mark- A has remains unproved because of the death of concerned doctor R.K. Likha during the trial of the present criminal case. The complainant Shakuntala herself has failed to disclose the date, day or even year of the occurrence. In Suchhan Pal Vs. Phani Pal and another 2004(1) RCR Criminal 221 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if two view are possible in a case then the court should lean towards the view which is favouring to the accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and he is hereby acquitted from the charges framed against him. His bail bonds and surety bonds stands discharged.” 6. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has recorded the valid reasons/grounds and rightly acquitted the accused. Learned State Counsel did not point out that how and in what manner, any interference is warranted in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Such well-articulated judgment of acquittal, containing the valid reasons/grounds, cannot possibly be interfered with in these proceedings, unless the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State Counsel in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the petition for leave to appeal is hereby declined, culminating in the dismissal of the appeal as well, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) October 13, 2010 Judge naresh.k