Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs Nirvair Singh on 8 May, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.166-MA of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.05.2009
Lakhwinder Singh
Applicant
Versus
Nirvair Singh
Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr.Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the applicant
.....
Jasbir Singh, J.
Lakhwinder Singh applicant had filed a complaint against respondent Nirvair Singh and five others for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B/149 IPC.
It was his allegation that the respondent and other accused, in connivance with each other, have prepared a forged and fabricated 'agreement to sell' dated 4.4.1996, with a view to grab property left by Smt.Gangi, grand mother of the complainant. To prove his allegation, in pre- charge evidence, complainant examined himself as CW1 and also brought on record sale deed executed in his favour on 24.12.1996. He also brought on Criminal Misc. No.166-MA of 2009(O&M) 2 record many other documents to prove his case. Report of the Finger Print Expert, to show that deceased Gangi never thumb marked the document in question, was also produced on record. On perusal of pre-charge evidence, the respondent and other accused were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
It is necessary to mention here that Nazar Singh, Numbardar of village Harika, who was added as an accused, died during pendency of the trial. Another accused, namely, Jagir Kaur was discharged on 9.1.2008. Trial continued against the respondent, Amrik Singh, Kartar Singh and Gian Singh.
Respondent Nirvair Singh is a stamp vender. Agreement to sell was prepared on stamp papers purchased from him. After being charge sheeted, the respondent and other accused cross-examined the witnesses.
On completion of prosecution's evidence, their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating material existing on record was put to them, they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. Respondent Nirvair Singh appeared as his own witness (DW1). To prove his case, he produced relevant entries from the Register (Ex.DA) and copy of his statement dated 1.7.2003 (Ex.DB). He also tendered in evidence copy of the order dated 13.9.2003 as Ex.DC and closed his evidence.
The trial Court on analysis of evidence led by both the parties found that the prosecution/ complainant has failed to prove allegations against the respondent Nirvair Singh beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, other three accused namely, Amrik Singh, Kartar Singh and Gian Singh were Criminal Misc. No.166-MA of 2009(O&M) 3 found guilty and they were convicted and sentenced for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/120-BIPC. Hence, this appeal.
Heard counsel for the applicant.
Mr.Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents on the same set of evidence, on the basis of which, his co-accused were convicted and sentenced. He prayed that the application be allowed and leave to file an appeal against the judgment, under challenge be granted.
After going through the contents of the paper book, we are not inclined to accept the arguments raised by counsel for the applicant. When acquitting the respondent of the charges, the trial Court has noted as under:-
"Counsel for the accused Nirvair Singh stamp vendor argued that he has no role to play in the entire incident. He has also appeared as DW1 and produced the record maintained by him. Counsel for the complainant has referred to cross examination of this witness and argued that register is not properly maintained. The stamp vendor has only sold the stamp papers for the disputed agreement to sell. It is not proved by any cogent evidence. If Nirvair Singh has conspired with other accused or had even antedated stamp papers sold to him. His name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and in the previous complaint filed by Mohinder Singh, he was not even summoned. Had the accused any connection with the alleged forgery, he Criminal Misc. No.166-MA of 2009(O&M) 4 would have not dared to appear in the witness box. Simply because there are some minor overwritings in the register here and there, it does not mean that he has forged the entry relating to the present case also. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove involvement of accused Nirvair Singh in the offence. In view of evidence on record, we are convinced that the finding given above, is perfectly justified. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the respondent had any common intention with his co-accused to commit the crime in question. Only stamp papers were purchased from him. Beyond that nothing has been proved. The respondent is a stamp vender. If some body, after purchasing the stamp papers, forged some documents, for the same, a stamp vender cannot be made liable. The finding given by the trial Court is as per evidence on record.
Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted.
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) Criminal Misc. No.166-MA of 2009(O&M) 5 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."
This application is also barred by limitation of 87 days. No ground has been made out to condone the same. Accordingly, the main application as well as application for condonation of delay are dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
08.05.2009 (Jora Singh)
gk Judge