Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 November, 2012
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 1
CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 19.11.2012
Harjinder Kaur
.....Applicant
versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M)
Harjinder Kaur
.....Applicant
versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik
Present: Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J.
CRM No.50221 of 2012 in CRM A 714-MA of 2012 This application has been filed for condonation of 77 days delay in filing the application seeking leave to file an appeal. In view of reasons mentioned therein, it is allowed and delay stands condoned. CRM No.41392 of 2012 in CRM A 572-MA of 2012 This application has been filed for condonation of 45 days delay in filing the application seeking leave to file an appeal. In view of reasons mentioned therein, it is allowed and delay stands condoned. CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 2 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) and CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) Both the applications have been filed against a common judgment dated 20.3.2012. Vide the said judgment, respondent Nos.2 to 5 in CRM A 714-MA of 2012 were acquitted of the charges framed against them, respondent No.2 in CRM A 572-MA of 2012 namely Balwinder Singh (husband of the applicant) was also acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 307 IPC, whereas he was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Latter application has been filed with a prayer for enhancement of sentence.
It is on record that marriage between above Balwinder Singh and the applicant was solemnized in the year 1999. A male child was born out of the wedlock on 12.11.1999. The private respondents in both the applications were named as accused in a criminal complaint filed by the applicant for commission of offences under Sections 120B, 307, 323, 406, 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The trial Judge has noted the following facts from the said complaint:-
"1.That the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused no.1 in accordance with the Sikh rites and the ceremonies and customs prevalent in the community at village Pobala, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal on 7.3.1999. The parents of the complainant spent about Rs.2,60,000 approx. on the marriage of the petitioner with the accused no.1 on different occasions and customs and dowry articles for the use and benefit of the complainant being Istridhan and entrusted the dowry articles to the accused as detailed & described in the CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 3 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) Annexure attached:-
Articles as detailed & described at serial no.1, 4, 5, 6, 11 to 18, 20 to 23 were entrusted to Balwinder Singh accused No.1 alongwith accused no.3 & 5 and the Articles as detailed & described at serial no.2, 3, 7 to 10, 19, 24 to 35 were entrusted over to accused no.1, 2 and 5 jointly for the common use and benefit of the complainant and articles as detailed & described at serial no.33 were entrusted to accused no.1 & 4 and article as detailed & described at serial no.34 weere entrusted to accused no.1, 2 & 4.
2. That the behaviour of the accused towards the complainant was not proper, sympathetic and humanitarian from the very beginning, because of the reason they were not satisfied with the dowry articles given by the parents of the complainant in her marriage with the accused no.1. The accused used to taunt and demand a motorcycle & golden chain for the accused no.1 on one pretext or the other moreover when accused no.1 & the complainant used to visit the parental house of the complainant at village Pobala they always demanded more dowry from the parents of the complainant and the parents of the complainant always tried to make them understand, but the behavious of the accused did not change.
That the complainant had to get up early in the morning and used to work till late to do the house hold chores without CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 4 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) any appreciation and encouragement from the accused, instead the complainant was not given sufficient food to eat and used to be given beatings by the accused no.1 on slightest provocation without any reasonable cause and excuse some times of his own and some times on being so instigated by other accused.
The complainant conveyed her miseries to her parents, they too advised her to bear with it with the hope that by passage of time the matter will turn up in her favour due to her good behaviour.
3. That the complainant after 2 month of the marriage was pressurized to bring Rs.50,000 from her parents to purchase motorcycle for accused no.1 and the complainant due to constant pressure of the accused duly conveyed the said demand of the accused to her parents.
The complainant's father Shri Bakha Singh, mother Smt.Harbhajan Kaur & brother Gurmukh Singh visited the in- laws house of the complainant at vilalge Kadiyal and requested all the accused that after performing the marriage of the complainant they are not in a position to meet their demand and they also assured the accused that they will fulfill their demand on some good occasion.
4. That the complainant gave birth to a male child on 12.11.1999 and the parents and brother, Gurmukh Singh, of the complainant in the last week of the November 1999 visited the CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 5 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) in-laws house of the complainant and they also gave customary gifts and clothes for all the accused, but the accused were not happy with the articles brought by the parents of the complainant and accused no.1, 2 & 4 told the parents of the complainant that now it is a good occasion and now they should give a motor cycle for accused no.1 and the father of the complainant requested the accused that he will arrange motor cycle for accused no.1 at the end of harvesting season.
5. That father of the complainant in the 4th week of December 1999 informed the accused that he has arranged money for purchasing motorcycle and they can come at any time to collect the money.
6. That accused no.1 & 4 in the 1st week of January 2000 visited the parental house of the complainant and their the father of the complainant gave Rs.30000/- in cash to the accused no.1 & 4 for purchasing splender motor cycle.
7. That the behaviour of the accused towards the complainant remained good for sometime but after 2/3 months or so, their behaviour towards the complainant again become un-sympathetic and in humanitarian, because of the reason they were of the belief that by torturing the complainant time and again the accused could extract more money from the complainant's parents in spite of the fact that the complainant always tried to make them understand, but the behaviour of the accused did not change and the complainant used to be given CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 6 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) beatings by the accused no.1 on slightest provocation without any reasonable cause and excuse some times of his own and some times on being so instigated by the other accused.
8. That the marriage of the brother of the complainant namely Gurmukh Singh took place on 13.2.2003 and in that marriage all the accused also participated and in that marriage accused no.1, so instigated by accused no.2 & 4, demanded a Maruti car from the father of the complainant and the accused no.1 also told the father of the complainant that untill & unless his demand of Car is not fulfilled he will not take the complainant and his son along with them. The father of the complainant requested the accused no.1 that he cannot give him a Car because it is beyond his capacity & control.
The father of the complainant after great persuation gave two buffalos, worth Rs.40,000/- to accused no.1 on the belief that the accused no.1 will keep his daughter happy and well.
9. That in the 1st week May 2003 the accused no.1, 2 & 4 came to the parental house of the complainant in a tractor- trolley along with the complainant, her son and two buffalos and the accused left the complainant, her son and two buffalos there and told the father of the complainant untill & unless their demand of Maruti Car is not fulfilled they will not take complainant and her son along with them and the accused also misbehaved with the family members of the complainant by CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 7 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) calling names in the name of mother & sister.
10. That the complainant stayed with her parents for 2 ½ years approx. and the accused never came to take back the complainant and her son and during this period the father of the complainant convened 2/3 panchayats in the house of the accused to resolve the matter and to settle the complainant at her in-laws house.
In that panchayats complainant's father Shri Bakha Singh, mother Smt.Harbhajan Kaur, brother Gurmukh Singh, harbhajan Singh, Ajit Singh, Ajaib Singh, Balkar Singh sons of Kartar Singh, all residents of village Pobala, Ajit singh, Jitender Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh, residents of Gumthlagaru, tehsil Pehowa, district Kurukshetra, Vichitra Singh son of Shri Gurbax Singh, resident of Rajpura (Punjab), Jaspal Singh s/o Kashmir Singh, resident of Akbarpur (Patiala) participated.
1st Panchayat was held in the 1st week of July 2003, 2nd panchayat was held in the middle of February 2004 and 3rd panchayat was held in the middle of May 2004, but the accused did not agree with the request of the members of the panchayat, rather the accused told the members of the panchayat that they will not mend their ways and the accused also told the members of panchayat that untill & unless their demand of Maruti Car is not fulfilled they will not take the complainant and her son along with them and the accused also misbehaved CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 8 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) with the members of the panchayat.
11. That after great persuasion from the father of the complainant accused no.1 & 4 came to village Pobola in the 2nd week of November 2005 and they agreed to take the complainant and her son alongwith them on the condition that the parents of the complainant will give a Maruti Car to accused no.1 on the marriage of complainant's younger brother Gurucharan Singh.
12. That the marriage of the younger brother of the complainant Gurucharan Singh took place on 12.2.2006 and in that marriage the accused no.1 repeated his demand of Maruti Car and upon this the father of the complainant requested the accused that he could not arrange Car in spite of his best efforts and upon this accused became angry and they left in the middle of the marriage after insulting the family members of the complainant and while leaving they also took the complainant and son along with them against her wishes.
13. That all the accused were annoyed with the complainant due to the reason that the father of the complainant did not fulfill the demand of Maruti Car and all the accused wanted to get rid off the complainant at any cost and in furtherance of their conspiracy entered into a conspiracy in the night intervening 27/28.5.2006 and in furtherance of said conspiracy formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of it all the accused on 28.5.2006 in the morning at about 5/6 AM came to CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 9 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) the room of the complainant, when the complainant was alone in her room along with her son and was sleeping and at that time accused no.5 started beating the complainant with the stick and inflicted stick blows on peerson of the complainant and the complainant fell on the ground and there after accused no.1, 2 & 5 caught hold the complainant by the arms & legs and accused no.4 tried to kill the complainant by strangulating i.e. by pressing & putting pressure upon the complainant's neck with his both hands with the intention to kill and resultantly the complainant became unconscious. Fearing that the complainant had died due to strangulation the accused no.1, 2 to 4 put the complainant in a Car with a view to disposed off her body, but the complainant during the journey regained her consciousness and the said accused out of fear put the complainant in the fields outside the village Pabala on the road side.
While the accused no.1, 2 & 4 were putting the semiconscious complainant outside the car, the said accused were recognized by Jitender Singh son of Ajit Singh and Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Balbir Singh, residents of Gumthala Gharu, who happened to personally know to the complainant and thereafter the accused fled away from the spot and said Jitender Singh and Jaswinder Singh informed the family members of the complainant and the family members of the complainant took her to their house in semi-conscious state CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 10 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) and gave her homely treatment such as water, hot milk etc. When the complainant regained her consciousness she narrated whole of the incident to her family members and then the father of the complainant took the complainant to the Civil Hospital, Kaithal and got her medically examined.
Dr.B.B.Kakkar, MO, Civil Hospital, Kaithal medico- legally examined the complainant, vide MLR No.BBK/158 dated 28.5.2006."
It is further case of the complainant that her father and brother went to protest against the above occurrence. The accused did not show any remorse rather they threatened her father and brother with dire consequences if any complaint is made to the police. However, the accused gave custody of the child to the parents of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant demanded back the dowry articles, however, her request was rejected. Balwinder Singh also refused to give any maintenance to the applicant and her child. Faced with the situation, she moved an application on 29.5.2006 to the police. When no action was taken, a criminal complaint was filed on 5.6.2006. The trial Magistrate examined five witnesses in pre- summoning evidence. The matter was sent to SHO police station Dhand under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to get further report which was submitted on 9.2.2007. The complainant - applicant then examined eight witnesses. On examining the same the private respondents were summoned to face trial for the offences as mentioned in earlier part of this order. On appearance of the respondents-accused copies of the documents were supplied to them as per norms. Their case was committed for trial to the competent Court on CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 11 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) 11.7.2009. They were charge sheeted on 8.3.2011 for commission of offences under Sections 498A, 406, 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 120B IPC. The prosecution produced eight witnesses. On conclusion of prosecution's evidence, statements of all the respondents- accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them which they denied claimined innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. It was specifically stated by the respondents, other than Balwinder Singh that the said Balwinder Singh and the applicant were residing separate from them. They have separate ration cards and there was nothing common between them and Balwinder Singh etc. They also led evidendce in defence.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence found respondent Nos.2 to 5 in CRM A 714-MA of 2012 not guilty and accordingly they were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Respondent-Balwinder Singh in the latter application was also found innocent so far as commission of offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, however, he was convicted and sentenced for the other minor offences.
Heard.
It has come on record that the applicant was medico legally examined by Dr.B.B.Kakkar (PW1) ON 28.5.2006. Following injuries were found on the person of the applicant:-
"1. A reddish contusion 22 CM x 2.5 cm around the left side of the neck (front) and back, redness was present and complained of pain neck. Advised X-ray and Ortho opinion.
2. A reddish contusion 6x2.5 cm on the outer aspect of the CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 12 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) left side of the arm.
3. A reddish contusion 8x2 cm on the left side of the leg at middle.
4. Reddish contusion 8x2.5 cm on the back of the left side of chest. Advised X-ray Chest.
5. A reddish contusion 6x2.5 cm on the left lumber region."
This witness has specifically deposed that all the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon. Injuries Nos.1 and 4 were kept under observation, whereas others were declared simple in nature.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy between the respondent-accused to commit the crime and further that no offence was committed by all the accused so far as offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned.
When acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 5 in CRM A 714-MA of 2012, the trial Judge has observed as under:-
"15...... the prosecution has produced Dr.B.B.Makkar(Kakkar) as PW1. He has deposed that on 28.5.2006, the complainant was brought to GH, Kaithal and the said PW had conducted her medical -legal examination. He found the complainant as conscious. He found a reddish contusion of 22 cm x 2.5 cm around the left side of neck and back of the complainant, wherein redness was present and complainant was feeling pain therein. He advised X-ray and Ortho opinion qua such injury. In his cross-examination, however, he has deposed that he could not tell the duration/ time of suffering the said injuries. CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 13 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) He could not give any opnion regarding the said injury and injury no.4 of the complainant because he had advised X-rays. He did not know as to what was the X-ray report regarding the said injury. Without seeing x-ray report, he could not opine as to whether the said injuries were grievous or were dangerous to life or not. As per him, the possibility that the said injuries were suffered with a friendly hand could not be ruled out. The complainant has herself appeared as PW5 to support the charge under the said Sections. In her cross-examination, however, she has deposed that the distance between her parental and matrimonial home is 100 km; that her matrimonial home is in Punjab and her parental house is in Haryana; that she was not conscious and therefore, she could not tell as to who was driving the car when she was allegedly left in the fields of village Pobala, that she was not conscious when she reached the Hospital and regained conscience on 28.5.2006 at about 1.00 PM; that since she was unconscious, she could not tell as to which doctor treated her in GH, Kaithal; and that she remained in the said Hospital till 5.00 PM on 28.5.2006. The prosecution has also examined PW6 Bakha Singh, father of the complainant. In his examination-in- chief, lhe has reiterated the prosecution version but in cross- examination, he has deposed that Pws Jatinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh informed him regarding the presence of his daughter in the fields at about 8.00 / 9.00 p.m. On 28.5.2006; CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 14 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) and that did not take any Numberdar and Member Panchayat of the village to the place where his daughter was lying. As per him, his daughter gained conscience on 28.5.2005/6 at about 5.00 PM and was discharged from GH Kaithal at about 6.00 PM. The prosecution has then examined PW7 Jatinder Singh. In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the prosecution case regarding the throwing of the complainant in the fields of village Pobala. However, in his cross-examination, he inter- alia has deposed that village Pobala is 1 ½ km from his village Ghumthala and they were going on a motorcycle, the number of which he does not remember, that he could not see the number of the car as the same was covered with mud; that he saw three persons from a distance of about 5-6 acres from the car; that when the all the three accused persons Rachhpal Singh, Baldev Singh and Balwinder Singh ran away from the spot, he was about six acres from the car and the said accused started running towards village Ghumthala; and that the complainant is his sister being of his near by village.
16. In para no.13 of the complaint, the complainant came up with a stand that the accused persons were annoyed with her as her father did not fulfill the demand of car and they wanted to get rid of the complainant at any cost. Therein, the complainant says that when she was sleeping with her son in the room, all the accused knocked the door of her room, where after, in furtherance of their common object all the accused CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 15 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) attempted to murder her. The alleged occurrence is stated to be of the intervening night of 27/28.5.2006 at about 5.00/6.00 AM. The complainant alleges that the accused Balwinder Singh was also party to the alleged crime. She does not say that the accused Balwinder Singh was not sleeping with his family on the alleged date. She says that due to the strangulation, she became unconscious but at the same time, she says that during the journey to vilalge Pobala, she regained her conscience. The said stand taken by the complainant, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, does not appear to be probable. If the accused persons would have to kill the complainant or would have though that she has died, as per the normal human conduct, they would not have allegedly thrown the complainant at a distance of 100 kms, that too in the fields of the village of her parents. The story of the complainant, rather, appears to be doubtful. Further, injury no.1 on the complainant does not co-relate itself with the said prosecution case. The alleged manner of strangulating the complainant, in my opinion, could not have caused injury no.1 on the complainant. The alleged act that the complainant was left in the fields of village Pobala, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, also does not appear to be probable. On the one hand, the complainant says in the complaint that she regained her conscience during the journey, whereas, on the other hand, she says that she regained CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 16 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) conscience at about 1.00 PM on 28.5.2006, whereas, her father says that she regained conscience at about 5.00 PM on the said date. The deposition of PW7 Jatinder Singh also does not appear to be correct. In fact, he was not known to the accused persons. How, he identified the accused persons is not on record. He has deposed himself as the brother of the complainant. He appears to be an interested witness, especially in view of his deposition in his cross-examination. The deposition of PW6 Bakha Singh in that regard is hear-say evidence. Since, the complainant and PW7 Jatinder Singh have not been believed regarding the alleged occurrence, his deposition in that regard is also rendered meaningless. If the accused would have to kill the complainant, there was no necessity for them to take the complainant to the fields of her father. The story set forth by the prosecution, appears to be made up story. Coupled with that, the prosecution has set forth another story that in the after noon of 28.5.2006, the complainant side went to the house of the accused persons and protested about the alleged occurrence. The said story also does not appear to be correct, in view of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses that the complainant remained admitted to GH Kaithal till 6.00 PM on 28.5.2006. In my opinion, the prosecution, therefore, has failed to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused persons have committed the offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 120-B of CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 17 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) IPC."
This Court feels that the findings given above are perfectly justified. The trial Court has noticed the medical evidence on record and rightly come to a conclusion that as per deposition made by Dr.B.B.Kakkar (PW1), the prosecution has failed to prove charge for commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC. Taking note of facts and circumstances on record and also a fact that as per case of the prosecution after causing injuries, the applicant was thrown in the fields of the village of her parents situated at a distance of 100 kms, rightly said that the story of the prosecution does not inspire confidence. Discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have rightly been taken against case of the prosecution. So far as enhancement of punishment is concerned for that even no case is made out. Sentence awarded to Balwinder Singh is in proportion to the offence committed by him.
The view taken by the trial Judge is perfectly justified and is as per law.
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 CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 18 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) 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."
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479, decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"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."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 19
CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) "7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.
8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction.
Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for." Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-
"10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal CRM A 714-MA of 2012(O&M) 20 CRM A 572-MA of 2012(O&M) against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience."
Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence on record by the trial Court. No case is made out for interference.
Accordingly, both the applications stand dismissed. A copy of the order be placed on connected file.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
19.11.2012 (Rameshwar Singh Malik)
gk Judge