Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Pal & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 September, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Appeal No. S-2840-SB of 2014 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal No. S-2840-SB of 2014
Date of Decision: 05.9.2014
Suresh Pal and another ......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. B.S.Virk, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondents No. 2 to 16 had faced trial in FIR No. 52 dated 17.3.2011 under Section 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Chandimandir. Trial Court vide order dated 2.5.104, ordered the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 16 of the charges framed against them. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the Sarpanch and big land owners of the village used to distribute amongst themselves the amount earned by auctioning sarkanda grown on shamlat land instead of utilizing the same for the development purposes and for the benefit of the villagers. In this regard, complainant party had assembled at the office of CPM, Barwala. At about 2.45 P.M., GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.08 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-2840-SB of 2014 -2- accused Jitender, Binda, Neetu, Golu, Bheema, Jatinder son of Parkash, Ran Singh and many other persons belonging to Rajput community, came there and started abusing the complainant party. Jitender gave an injury on the head of Suresh Pal whereas Binda gave an injury on the right leg of the complainant. Neetu gave a lathi blow on the belly of the complainant whereas accused Golu and others gave fist blows on the head and back of Joinger. Accused Mahi Pal and Binda gave injuries to Satpal on his right leg and back. Accused Bheema and Jatinder gave fist blows to Satpal. The other accused assaulted the members of the complainant party.
The Trial Court, after going through the evidence on record, held that the bone of contention between the parties was qua misappropriation of the sale proceeds of sarkanda from shamlat land. However, original application moved by the complainant party to the Deputy Commissioner, in this regard, was not proved on record. Complaint Ex. PA, produced on record, did not have any dispatch number of the office. The caste certificates of the prosecution witnesses were not proved on record. The learned Trial Court has further noticed that as per the prosecution witnesses, many persons had gathered at the spot and had addressed the complainant party as "chudhe chamar". However, there was no material on record that the said words had been uttered by the accused facing trial. Further, learned Trial Court has held that it was not established on record that the occurrence had taken place inside the CPM office. The version given by the prosecution witnesses qua place of occurrence, was different. The learned Trial Court has further noticed that PW-15 Inspector GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.08 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-2840-SB of 2014 -3- Jangsher Singh had admitted that during the scuffle between the parties, accused Ravinder and Bhim Singh had also suffered injuries and medico legal reports of the said accused were on record. PW-17 Badri Parshad had admitted that the accused had also moved an application for taking action against the complainant party. The injuries on the person of the accused had remained unexplained. The medico legal reports of the victims were not proved on record but even if the same were taken in consideration, the victims had suffered simple injuries. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a case of free fight where two factions had quarreled with each other and both the sides had suffered injuries. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that respondents No. 2 to 16 were liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court.
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 GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.08 16:20 appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-2840-SB of 2014 -4- 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."
To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.08 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-2840-SB of 2014 -5- views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed"
Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 05, 2014 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.08 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh