Criminal Appeal No. 643-DBA of 2000 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 643-DBA of 2000 Date of decision : 13.5.2008 Balwinder Singh .....Appellant Versus Rattan Singh etc. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/accused. However, in view of the fact that leave to appeal in this case had been granted by a Coordinate Bench as early as on 29.11.2000, we opted to examine the judgment of the Trial Court. The impugned order of acquittal at the hands of the learned Trial Judge came to be recorded in a private complaint preferred by petitioner-complainant Balwinder Singh against respondent-accused in respect of offences under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 452, 148 and 149 IPC. The allegation was that the respondent/accused belaboured the petitioner/complainant with their respective weapons after they entered the house under reference on the night intervening 25/26.11.1996. That house had been purchased by Mst. Biro, mother of the complainant. Insofar as Mst. Biro is concerned, she sustained injuries on account of hurling of brick bats at her by Balwinder Singh respondent-accused who was available on Criminal Appeal No. 643-DBA of 2000 -2- *** the roof of the house. Complainant lodged FIR ( No. 129 of 1996) with the Police but no action was taken against respondents/accused. It was therefor that the petitioner/complainant was impelled to file a private complaint. As apparent from the record, petitioner-complainant filed the private complaint after a period of two months of the alleged occurrence. It is also apparent from the record that petitioner-complainant swung into action only when it came to his notice that proceeding under Section 182 IPC were about to be lodged in respect of falsity of that FIR (No. 129 of 1996). The matter had been investigated by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. The finding by that officer was adverse to that of the petitioner/complainant. There was a civil litigation about that house between the parties to the prosecution. The possibility, thus, of the petitioner has filed the complaint to pressurise the respondents-accused cannot be ruled out particularly in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Apart from the fact that no weapon was averred to have been used nor any grevious injury been caused in the course of impugned occurrence, it requires particular notice that the weapon of offence attributed to the respondents/accused could not have led to causing of injury on the forehead in the middle of left eye upper as Datar cannot be used in that way. Qua Injury No. 2 X-ray, film was not produced. Dr. Tejwant Singh, who had conducted the radiological examination, categorically indicated that cut was not visible in the A.P. view. The Court further recorded that “as far as injuries No. 2 and 3 are concerned, they can be self suffered injuries on the person of Balwinder Singh.” Criminal Appeal No. 643-DBA of 2000 -3- *** We find, on perusal of the file that the learned Trial court had taken a possible view in the matter. It is further apparent to us that learned Trial Judge accorded due importance to the fact that private complaint was filed after a long period of time and that too when the police was about to launch a prosecution under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner- complainant. There being nothing perverse in the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court. We have no reservation in holding that present plea deserves dismissal and we so order accordingly. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 13, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE