Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal vs Mehar Chand And Others on 11 March, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.60306 of 2012 in/and
CRM No.A-819-MA of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 11, 2014
Dharam Pal
...Appellant
Versus
Mehar Chand and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
CRM No.60306 of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CRM No.A-819-MA of 2012 (O&M) Appellant-applicant Dharam Pal has filed present application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12.07.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad vide judgment dated 12.07.2012 has acquitted the respondents wrongly against the evidence on record Gulati Vineet 2014.03.19 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.60306 of 2012 in/and -2- CRM No.A-819-MA of 2012 (O&M) and the judgment is illegal, perverse and the evidence has not been appreciated in right perspective. He further argued that there is eye witness account as well as medical evidence on the record but even then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad has acquitted the respondents.
I have gone through the record and have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the record, I find that the judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad acquitting the respondents-accused in a complaint case is correct and as per law. Nothing has been pointed as to how the findings are illegal or against the evidence. As per the reasonings given by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, the judgment also cannot be held as perverse or against the evidence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad has appreciated the evidence in right perspective.
First of all, PW-4 Kamla Devi in her cross-examination stated that she did not know as to who gave injuries to whom as she was in ghungat at the relevant time, which means that she has not seen the occurrence and the evidence given in chief examination is tutored one and cannot be believed wherein she has given the occurrence in detail. Again, she has stated that occurrence took place in a room of her house. PW-5 Kamaldeen in cross-examination has stated that no injury has been given to his mother in his presence. He also stated that occurrence took place in the courtyard of the house whereas PW-3 Dharam Pal, complainant stated that the quarrel Gulati Vineet 2014.03.19 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.60306 of 2012 in/and -3- CRM No.A-819-MA of 2012 (O&M) took place in the street, while as per complaint Ex.PW3/A, the incident took place in the room. It is a material discrepancy, which may go to the root of the case as the PWs are inconsistent and discrepant regarding place of occurrence. Further, the statement of PW-4 Kamla Devi cannot be believed in view of her cross-examination. Similarly, PW-5 Kamaldeen has stated that no injury is given to his mother in his presence. Further, as per the judgment, it was case of cross-version to the FIR case recorded against the complainant party by the accused party of this case. The copy of the judgment of that case has also been placed on record. Though in that case, accused have been acquitted, who belong to the complainant party of this case but it shows that the charges were under Section 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused in the present case in hand have proved the injuries on their person but the complainant has not given any explanation as to how the respondents-accused have received the injuries. Non-explaining the injuries on the person of the accused in the present case, further creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. Even, PWs have not stated that injury has been given to the accused party in self-defence. So, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad has correctly held that prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. The witnesses, who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of accused are lying on a most material point. PWs are discrepant on material points and further place of occurrence has not been established beyond reasonable Gulati Vineet 2014.03.19 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.60306 of 2012 in/and -4- CRM No.A-819-MA of 2012 (O&M) doubt.
From the above discussion, I find that the reasonings given by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad are correct, as per law and therefore, no grounds is made out to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents.
Resultantly, the present application/appeal stands dismissed.
March 11, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Gulati Vineet
2014.03.19 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh