The presumption of innocence, the requirement for compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal, and the importance of giving due weight to the trial court's decision were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:—

The instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr. P. C. ' for short), has been filed by the complainant, seeking leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment of dated 25.7.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

The criminal law was set into motion by the applicantcomplainant with the allegation that the accused have committed the offence in question. However, in order to avoid repetition and also for the sake of brevity, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts as noticed by the learned trial court and the same read, as under:-

“A complaint was filed in the court of learned Ilaqa Magistrate, Faridabad by complainant Raj Singh. It was stated therein by the complainant that he is a poor person. He is an agriculturist and brings up his family. There was a litigation between the complainant and accused regarding partition proceedings with regard to the agricultural land. He (complainant) referred an appeal in the Court of SDM, Ballabgarh, which is still pending, For this reason, the accused nursed grudge against complainant and asked him that why he filed an appeal. When he goes to his fields, then accused misbehave with him and abuse him. The complainant submitted that on 23.9.2008 at about 5:30/6:00p. m., he was present at his fields. In the meantime, all the accused in furtherance of their common object came over the fields of the complaint. The accuse Raj Singh was having a Ballam in his hand; whereas accused Ajit, Surjeet, Bhagat Singh, Shiv Singha nd Maharaj Singh were having lathis and dandas in their hands. There was a wire fencing around the fields of the complainant and all the accused started removing the fencing. When the complainant tried to stop them from doing so, accused No. 1 Randhir stated that "Are O koli Ke Aulad, Aaj Teri Chhori Ko Chod Dunga" and by saying these words, he pulled him on the ground after him in the grip of his arms. After that the other accused namely Raj Singh, Ajit, Surjeet Bhagat Singh, Shiv Singh and Maharaj said that they should kill the complainant for filing the appeal. Upon this Shiv Singh and Maharaj used filthy language qua mother and sister of complainant and further used words "Iss Chamar Koli Ko Iski Chamargati Ka Maja Chakha Do'. After that all the accused began to thrash him by kicks and fists and used filthy language towards the complainant. The complainant raised hue and cry and on hearing the same, Sunil son of Pohap Singh, Rajbir son of Bar Singh, Jai Chand son of Gulzari, Bijender Solanki son of Virender Singh, Isak Khan son of Hamid Khan, Raj Kishore son of Nand lal and Sumer Singh son of Chiranji Lal came at the spot and they saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused, otherwise would have killed him on that day. In the presence of these persons also, all the accused used filthy language towards complainant and stated that " Are O Koli Ke, Aaj to Tujhe Inn Gram Walo Ne Bacha Liya Hai, Agar Tune Aage Koi Karyawahi Hmare Khilaf Ki To Tujhe Jaan Se Maar Denge' Complaint further submitted that on 24.9.2008, he moved an application before SHO, Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, for taking necessary action against the accused but the police did not take any action in this regard. When the police did not take any action, then he submitted a complaint on 27.9.2008 which was forwarded for registration of a case by the Area Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. On which formal FIR No. 213 dated 4.10.2008 was registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabhgarh, under Sections 323, 506 and 427 IPC and as also under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Investigating Agency, however, submitted a cancellation report. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed by the complainant which was treated as a private complaint and after recording prelimin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document