Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Vikram Saini on 12 October, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
CRM-A-785-MA of 2012 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CRM-A No. 785-MA of 2012 and
CRM No. 56055 of 2012
Date of decision : 12.10.2012
State of Haryana .......Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
Vikram Saini ..........Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik
Present:- Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana
for the applicant-appellant
---
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This application has been filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 20.1.2012. Vide above judgment the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
It was an allegation against the respondent-accused that on 22.5.2010 he had fired a shot at Amit Garg alias Ashu-the complainant. The trial Judge has noted the following facts regarding case of the prosecution :-
"Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 22.5.2010, ASI Ishwar Singh along with ASI Ashok Kumar and EASI Ram Kishan was present at Bihari Chowk in connection with patrol duty. At that time, the complainant Amit Garg @ Ashu met him and got his statement recorded to the effect that he was resident of Radaur and dealing in Vita milk at Chandigarh. About 1 ½ CRM-A-785-MA of 2012 (O & M) -2- years ago, there was some dispute between one Pardeep Rana, resident of Salwan and accused Vikram Saini resident of Radaur, at Pipli regarding money which was settled about one year ago. In that dispute, he (complainant) was present in the Panchayat on behalf of Pardeep Rana due to which accused Vikram Saini had a grudge against him. On that day i.e. 22.5.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., he was returning to his home from the market on a motorcycle being driven by him while his friend Veer Singh @ Pardhan was sitting thereon as a pillion rider. When they reached the turn of his house, accused Vikram Saini and Hansraj, owner of Saini Electric Store were sitting before the said shop. On seeing them, Hansraj exhorted Vikram Saini by saying that Ashu has come. On this, accused Vikram Saini fired a shot on him with a country-made pistol with an intention to kill him. Anyhow, the shot missed the target and both the culprit, ran away from the spot."
It is a fact that nobody was injured in the said incident. The Investigating Officer ASI Ishwar Singh PW-11, after recording statement Ex. PC of the complainant Amit Garg PW-6, sent it to the police station for recording of an FIR. He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, arrested the accused and recovered one pistol along with one empty cartridge from him. He also recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, final report was put in Court against accused-respondent Vikram Saini only. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused as per norms. Case was committed to the competent Court for trial vide order dated 19.7.2010. The respondent accused was charge sheeted on 2.8.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 11 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case.
CRM-A-785-MA of 2012 (O & M) -3- On conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, statement of the respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he denied, claimed innocence and false implication. It was specifically stated by him that he has falsely been implicated at the instance of the complainant due to previous enmity as he had got registered a criminal case against the complainant on 4.5.2010. He also led evidence in his defence.
On appraisal of evidence, the trial Judge found case of the prosecution doubtful, benefit of which was given to the accused and accordingly accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Hence, this application.
The trial Judge has rightly found that enmity exists between the parties, on account of some quarrel which had taken place about one and a half year prior to the date of occurrence. To form above opinion, reliance was placed upon Ex. D-1, a copy of FIR No. 55 dated 4.5.2010. The trial Court also noted many discrepancies in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. Non-joining of independent witnesses at the time of alleged recovery, was also rightly taken against the prosecution. A detailed discussion has been made by the trial Judge in Paras No. 17 and 18 of the judgment under challenge. It was also noted that the place from where weapon of offence was allegedly recovered, was accessible to general public. In view of above, this Court feels that the view taken by the trial Judge in acquitting the respondent-accused is perfectly justified and as per CRM-A-785-MA of 2012 (O & M) -4- evidence on record.
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 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 CRM-A-785-MA of 2012 (O & M) -5- 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:-
"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:-
CRM-A-785-MA of 2012 (O & M) -6- "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 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 applicant-appellant has failed to show any error in law on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.
Otherwise also, no plausible explanation has been furnished for causing delay of 145 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Rameshwar Singh Malik) Judge 12.10.2012 Ashwani