Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Jagjit Singh Sarpanch - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S No.661-SB of 2016 (O&M)
Decided on : 13-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sidakmeet Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
The requirement for the Appellate Court to record a finding of perversity in the trial Court's judgment before setting aside an order of acquittal.
Headnote:
IPC - Offences under Sections 409 and 201 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [409, 201] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, the cross-examination of witnesses, and the legal provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The judgment highlighted the inimical relationship between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses, the lack of proof of a valid meeting, and the failure to produce the alleged proceeding register. The court also emphasized the requirement for the Appellate Court to record a finding of perversity in the trial Court's judgment before setting aside an order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Sarpanch, was accused of snatching a proceeding register during a Gram Panchayat meeting. The trial Court acquitted the appellant, but the Lower Appellate Court convicted him under Sections 409 and 201 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighted the inimical relationship between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses, and emphasized the lack of proof of a valid meeting and the alleged proceeding register.
Issues: Validity of the evidence, inimical relationship between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses, proof of a valid meeting, and the requirement for the Appellate Court to record a finding of perversity in the trial Court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence, the inimical relationship between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses, and the failure to prove the existence of a valid meeting and the alleged proceeding register.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Lower Appellate Court convicting the appellant under Sections 409 and 201 IPC were set aside.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. Prayer in this appeal is for setting-aside the judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Lower Appellate Court vide which the appellant was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under the aforesaid sections and the judgment dated 04.01.2014 passed by the trial Court acquitting the appellant was set-aside by the Lower Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Block Development Panchayat Officer (in short 'the BDPO'), Kharar, District Mohali submitted a complaint on 28.09.2010 to Station House Officer, Police Station Kharar City to register an FIR against the appellant – Jagjit Singh (the then Sarpanch) with the allegations that on 24.09.2010 at about 10:00 AM, he was presiding over a meeting of Gram Panchayat of village Parchh regarding the complaint given by other members of the Panchayat i.e. Panches to pass a no confidence motion/resolution against the appellant – Jagjit Singh. It is further stated that when the proceedings were going on and the signatures of the members were obtained, the appellant – Jagjit Singh snatched the proceeding register and ran away. On this allegation, the FIR No.44 dated 02.04.2011 under Sections 409, 379 and 201 IPC at Police Station City Kharar, Mohali was registered against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') was submitted on 15.06.2011 qua which the appellant did not plead guilty and claimed the trial. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges under Sections 409 and 201 IPC.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW1 – Indervir Singh, Halqa Patwari, who proved on record the Jamabandi Ex.PW1/A pertaining to the year 2007-08.
PW2 – Pal Singh, Member Panchayat stated that on 24.09.2010, he along with other members of the Panchayat was present in the office of BDPO, Kharar and the accused – Jagjit Singh who was Sarpanch of the village, ran away with the proceeding register.
PW3 – Rattan Singh, another Member Panchayat also deposed on the same line.
PW4 – Inspector Parshotam Chand (Retired), the Investigating Officer deposed that he got the FIR Ex.PW4/A registered on the complaint made by the BDPO – Malwinder Singh. This witness proved the site plan Ex.PW4/B, personal search memo of the appellant
3. Ex.PW4/C, arrest memo Ex.PW4/D and the enquiry report conducted by him Ex.PW4/E.
PW5 – Kuldeep Singh, another member of the Panchayat also deposed on the same line that when the members have signed the resolution in the meeting, the appellant – Jagjit Singh fled away with the proceeding register.
4. The complainant – Malwinder Singh, BDPO was examined as PW6 has also stated that he was conducting a meeting and the accused/appellant – Jagjit Singh fled away with the proceeding register. This witness has further deposed that on 28.09.2010, he moved an application against the accused/appellant Ex.PW6/A before the Incharge Police Station Kharar.
PW7 – Hakam Singh, Panchayat Secretary also deposed on the same line.
5. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by Court order on 18.02.2013.
6. The statement of the appellant/accused was recorded, thereafter, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded false implication.
7. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties acquitted the appellant/accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of the appellant – Jagjit Singh beyond reasonable doubt. While observing so, the trial Court has recorded a finding that it has come in the cross-examination of PW5 – Kuldeep Singh, Member Panchayat where he admitted that accused – Jagjit Singh being Sarpanch has filed application against many people of the village including PW3 – Rattan Singh an
