Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs Rajinder Kumar And Ors on 7 October, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2014.10.13 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. 27694 of 2014 and
CRR No. 2815 of 2014 (O/M)
Date of Decision : 7.10.2014
Om Parkash .......... Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Kumar and others ....... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
KULDIP SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CRM No. 27694 of 2014 Prayer in the present application is for condonation of 60 days in filing the present revision petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 60 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
CRR No. 2815 of 2014 Through the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 5.3.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, affirming the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate dated 15.5.2012, vide which the complaint filed by the complainant/petitioner under Sections 447/427/504/506/148/149 IPC was dismissed after summoning and framing charges against the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the courts below have misread the evidence. The evidence was not properly appreciated.
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2014.10.13 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR No. 2815 of 2014 (O/M) -2-
A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the trial Court took into consideration the fact that the accused are alleged to have entered the fields of the complainant and cut the cotton crop. However, they did not cause any injury to the complainant. The trial Court also doubted the possession of the complainant/petitioner over the disputed land as the father of the complainant/petitioner showed ignorance about filing of application for correction of khasra girdawari. The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that accused allegedly took one and half hour for cutting the cotton crop, but nobody from the society of the village was called nor the police was informed. During the cross- examination, the complainant could not tell the instrument used for cutting the crop. Another witness (CW2) could not tell whether it was a dark or moonlit night when the occurrence took place. The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that no cogent proof was produced to show that the complainant had sown the cotton crop, which was allegedly cut by the accused. The findings were affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka.
After going through the judgments of both the courts below, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE 7.10.2014 sjks