Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Lal vs Surender And Anr on 4 May, 2016
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.9067 of 2016 in/and
CRM No.A-524-MA of 2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: May 04, 2016
Rattan Lal
...Applicant
Versus
Surender and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Shashikant Gupta, Advocate
for the applicant.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
CRM No.9067 of 2016 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for condoning the delay of 1068 days in filing the appeal.
It is stated in the application that against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2013 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, applicant had wrongly filed criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which was dismissed being not maintainable on 22.01.2016 and therefore, the delay of 1068 days has occurred in the filing the application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. before this Court.
Heard.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:19:37 ::: CRM No.A-524-MA of 2016 -2- For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 1068 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is condoned.
CRM No.A-524-MA of 2016 Applicant-Rattan Lal has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondents Surender and Sangeeta, challenging the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2013 passed by learned ACJM, Narnaul, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted.
It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is also stated that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt against the respondents-accused, which has not been taken into consideration by learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.
As per the record, the complainant Rattan Lal filed a complaint against accused Surender and Sangeeta under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506, 500 and 34 IPC. The brief facts of the case as noted in the judgment passed by learned ACJM, Narnaul, are as under:-
".Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that complainant is a retired government employee. The
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:19:38 ::: CRM No.A-524-MA of 2016 -3- accused are the quarrelsome persons. The accused no.1 is his son and accused no.2 is his daughter-in-law. The accused no.1 is vagabond person and borrowed money and complainant has to pay the amount. On 27.7.2007, he has published a news in newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' for not having any relating with accused no.1 and on that date, when he reached the village then the accused persons started giving beatings to him with the help of lathies, dandas and sharp edged weapon as well as abused him. After hearing his cries, the many persons gathered there and rescued him. Thereafter, he went to the police station to lodge the report and moved an application and was also medicolegally examined but no action was taken by the police except implicating them in a case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present complaint."
Learned ACJM, Narnaul, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2013.
I have gone through the judgment dated 07.02.2013 passed by learned ACJM, Narnaul. I find that that the findings given by learned Magistrate are correct, as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse i.e. against the evidence and law. At the time of arguments, nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below.
Accused No.1 Surender is son of complainant and accused No.2 Sangeeta is daughter-in-law. As per the record, the occurrence took place on 27.07.2007 as the complainant got published a news in the newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' for not having any relation with accused No.1. As per the complainant, the accused started giving beating to him with the help of lathies and dandas as 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:19:38 ::: CRM No.A-524-MA of 2016 -4- well as sharp edged weapon and abused him. After hearing the noise, many persons gathered there and rescued him but at the same time it is stated in the complaint that he went to the police station to lodge the report and moved an application but no action was taken by the police except implicating them in case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C.
The perusal of the reasonings given by the Court below show that these are correct, as per evidence and law and in no way, can be held as perverse. Learned lower Court has mentioned in para No.9 about so many complaints filed by the present complainant and other proceedings to show that present complainant is habitual in filing such type of cases. Furthermore, from the MLR, which is shown to this Court by learned counsel for the applicant, there is no injury with sharp edged weapon. Similarly, as per the complaint, so many injuries were given with lathies, dandas and sharp edged weapons and also with kick and fist blows but this version is not supported and corroborated by medical evidence. As per PW-1 Dr.A.K.Rohilla, only four injuries were mentioned in the MLR. The Court also discussed that in cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he has purchased a motorcycle and he was not knowing how to drive the motorcycle. Therefore, the Court held that in the facts and circumstances and the injuries, it looks that complainant got injuries by fall from the motorcycle etc. The Court below also discussed the complaints filed by the present complainant against other persons and held that perusal of the complaints and orders show that Ram Swaroop is the stock witness of the complainant.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:19:38 ::: CRM No.A-524-MA of 2016 -5- In view of the above discussion, I find that the findings given by learned ACJM, Narnaul, in no way, can be held as perverse, rather, these have been given after appreciating the evidence in right perspective. The impugned judgment dated 07.02.2013 passed by learned ACJM, Narnaul, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court.
Keeping in view above facts and circumstances, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.
May 04, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:19:38 :::