Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narotam Singh @ Sabba vs Kashmir Singh And Others on 5 October, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 05.10.2012
Narotam Singh @ Sabba
.....Applicant
versus
Kashmir Singh and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik
Present: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M. No.44352 of 2012 This application has been filed for condonation of 32 days delay in filing the application for grant of leave to file an appeal. For the reasons mentioned in application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and delay stands condoned.
CRM A 632-MA of 2012 Applicant is attorney of Smt.Samittri Devi complainant, whose criminal complaint was dismissed by the Court below vide judgment dated 17.4.2012 acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them. Hence, this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., seeking leave to file an appeal.
The respondents were arrayed as accused in criminal complaint No.25 filed in the year 2007 for commission of offences under Sections 467, 471, 420, 120-B IPC. It was an allegation against them that they had prepared a false receipt on 28.4.2006 for an amount of Rs.4000/- towards CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M) 2 redemption of the land under mortgage.
The trial Judge has noted the following facts regarding case of the complainant:-
"2. It has been alleged in the complaint that Narotam Singh son of complainant has been appointed as General Power of Attorney vide General Power of Attorney dated 7.11.2006. Accused no.3 Sarwan Devi and Ananti Devi mortgaged the land measuring 25 kanals 17 marlas out of khasra no.15R/8/2, 9/1, 12/2, 13/1, 5R/22, 12R/2, 6R/7/2, 8/2, 13 and 14 situated at village Sallowal, Tehsil Dasuya, now in Mukerian, in favour of Kashmir Singh, Bishan Singh accused no.1 and 2 to the extent of ½ share for Rs.4000/- only, vide registered mortgaged deed dated 11.7.1972. All the accused in conspiracy with each other prepared a false receipt dated 28.4.2006 alleged to have been thumb marked by complainant Samittri Devi signed by Basant Singh, Kashmir Singh accused and witnessed by accused Chamel Singh, ramesh Singh, Namberdar of village by impersonating one in place of Samittri Devi complainant, in favour of accused no.3, knowing well that Samittri Devi complainant has not thumb marked the said receipt dated 28.4.2006. They after preparing the original receipt dated 28.4.2006, in connivance with the revenue record, have got entered mutation for redemption of said land on the basis of forged receipt at the instance and in connivance with other accused i.e. Pritam Singh, Namberdar. They got sanctioned CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M) 3 mutation without notice to the complainant within a period of one week. The complainant neither received any mortgaged money recited in the forged receipt dated 28.4.2006, nor thumb marked the same on the basis of which mutation no.1386 was sanctioned and accused no.1 to 3 have also filed civil suit claiming declaration and redemption of land on the basis of forged receipt dated 28.4.2006, whereby they forged a document which is a valuable security.
3. It has further been alleged that the complainant came to know about forgery on 20.10.2006 after obtaining copy of order of appeal filed before the Collector, Mukerian. The mother of complainant also filed an application to DSP, Mukerian, but to no effect. On 8.7.2007, accused no.1, 2 and 4 to 6 came to the house of complainant with Wajir Singh and met Narotam Singh and admitted their guilt. They also requested not to take any action against them, but the power of attorney of complainant did not agree. Hence, the present complaint."
After recording preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned to face trial on 4.12.2008. In pre-charge evidence, complainant examined eight witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. The respondents were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant again examined witnesses in post charge evidence. On completion of complainant's evidence, statement of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M) 4 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them which they pleaded innocence and false implication. It was specifically averred by them that the complainant was not in possession of the suit property. Some of the respondents took up a stand that the suit property had already been got redeemed in the year 1976 and thereafter, it was in their possession. It was further stated that Sarwana Devi @ Swarana Devi - respondent had become absolute owner of the property in dispute on the basis of judgment passed by a Civil Court. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence found case of the complainant doubtful, benefit of which was given to the respondents and they were acquitted of the charge framed against them. It was noted by the trial Court that the complaint was not signed by anybody and as such it was not maintainable. It was also noted by the trial Judge that Samittri Devi was not produced in Court to say that by forging her thumb impression false receipt was prepared by the respondents. It has also come on record that Wazir Singh, before whom it was alleged that the respondents had made an extra judicial confession has also reciled from his statement. It has also come on record that the land was got redeemed in the year 1976-77 and since then possession is with some of the respondents and further that the respondents did not prepare any forged receipt as alleged. It was so said by making reference to the statements made by CW4 and CW5 and other witnesses. It has also come on record that the complainant has failed to prove that on the receipt in question thumb impression of the complainant was forged.
CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M) 5
This Court feels that the view formed by the trial Court in acquitting the respondent is perfectly justified.
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 CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M) 6 "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:-
"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 CRM A 632-MA of 2012(O&M) 7 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 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.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
05.10.2012 (Rameshwar Singh Malik)
gk Judge