IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.A-707-MA of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 29.09.2011 Amandeep Singh and others …..Applicants versus Gurjit Singh and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the applicants Mr.D.S.Brar, Addl.A.G. Punjab Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate Jasbir Singh, J. This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against judgment, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Jalandhar on 18.1.2011, acquitting the respondents-Gurjit Singh and Kamaljit Singh from the charges framed against them. It was allegation against the above named respondents that they had caused injuries to the complainant and others in FIR No.9 dated 29.1.2007. Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court reads thus:- “As per the facts of the case, on 29.1.2007 ASI Revail Singh went to Civil Hospital Kala Bakra, Jalandhar to record the statement of injured. He recorded the statement of Jyoti Crl.Misc.No.A-707-MA of 2011(O&M) Sharma, who stated that on 22.1.2007 he was present in his gym situation on Adampur Road and was giving training to the boys, who had come for practice. Amandeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh came to his gym for practice. At about 8.30 p.m. Gurjit Singh son of Gurbachan Singh armed with sharp edged weapon with a wooden handle. Kamaljit Singh armed with Kirpan and two other unknown boys came inside his gym. Gurjit Singh abused the complainant and told him to come out and they would see to him. The complainant tried to avoid them out of fear. Gurjit Singh gave blow with a sharp edged weapon, which he tried to ward off by raising his left arm, as a result of which it hit on his arm. The other unknown boy gave iron rod blow which hit on his waist. Amandeep Singh Gurdeep Singh tried to save him. Gurjit Singh gave another blow with sharp edged weapon on the person of Amandeep Singh, who raised his left arm as a result of which it hit on his left hand. The unknown boys gave rod blow on the person of Amandeep Singh. Gurdeep Singh came forward to save him. On this Gurjit Singh gave kirpal blow which hit on the right hand of Gurdeep Singh. The complainant pushed Gurjit Singh, as a result of which he fell down on the machine. Amandeep Singh pushed Kamaljit Singh and he also fell down on the machine, as a result of which they received injuries. On the alarm raised by them, all the accused persons left the spot on their white colour Maruti Car. The reason behind this occurrence was that he had a quarrel with Gurjit Singh and on this he had protested the matter by visiting his house. Because 2 Crl.Misc.No.A-707-MA of 2011(O&M) of this reason, Gurjit Singh and his companions came to his gym and caused them injuries.” It is an admitted fact that against the applicants, a criminal case had already been registered on a statement made by Gurjit Singh – respondent, for causing injuries to him and Kamaljit Singh by the complainant party in that FIR. On completion of investigation by SI Revail Singh(PW3), final report was put in Court. Requisite documents were supplied to the respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The respondents were charge sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 326, 324/34 IPC. The prosecution led five witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. The trial Court on analysis of evidence, came to a conclusion that no case is made out against the respondents. Accordingly, by giving them benefit of doubt, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. As per admitted facts on record, occurrence had taken place on 22.1.2007 at 8.30 PM. Injured Jyoti Sharma and Amandeep Singh came to the doctor, for the first time on 23.1.2007 at 1.15 PM. The prosecution has failed to explain the above delay. As per Dr.Kuljit Pal Singh (PW2), duration of the injuries suffered by Jyoti Sharma and Amandeep Singh was within 12 hours. But in the present case, both the injured had contacted the doctor for treatment after a gap of about 16 hours after the alleged 3 Crl.Misc.No.A-707-MA of 2011(O&M) occurrence. It was admitted by this witness that at the time of examination of both the injured, he did not notice any process of granulation at the seat of the injury. Taking note of above fact, the trial Court right came to a conclusion that injuries on the persons of Jyoti Sharma and Amandeep Singh were comparatively fresh as against their version that they had received these injuries at 8.30 PM on 22.1.2007. Injuries were also found to be simple in nature. No blood stains were found at the place of occurrence. Contrary to this, as per defence version, injuries were received by the respondents Gurjit Singh and Kamaljit Singh at the time of alleged occurrence. It was so stated and proved by Dr.B.S.Johal (DW2). The trial Court by noting the fact as above, rightly came to a conclusion that the injuries at the person of the applicants/ complainant were self suffered. This Court is of the opinion that in view of above, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The view formed by the trial Court was justified and is as per evidence on record. Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. 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) 4 Crl.Misc.No.A-707-MA of 2011(O&M) 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.” No sufficient ground is made out to condone delay of 157 days in filing the application. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 29.09.2011 (Sabina) gk Judge 5