Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 817
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Gurbachan Singh And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 241 of 2013, 1057 of 2013
Decided On : 24-09-2019
Akshay Jain, Adv., Manish Bansal, Adv., Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Adv., Raghav Gulati, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the careful consideration required before reversing a judgment of acquittal, emphasizing the principles of interference in appeal against acquittal and the presumption of innocence.
Headnote:
appeal against acquittal - Indian Penal Code - Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 - The judgment discusses the principles of interference in appeal against acquittal, the importance of considering all aspects of the case, and the need for strong and compelling reasons to differ with the findings of acquittal. The court emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the need for careful consideration before reversing a judgment of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute leading to physical assault and injuries. The trial court acquitted the petitioners-convicts, but the appellate court reversed the judgment of acquittal. The primary issue was whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal without considering all aspects of the case and without dealing with the points on which the judgment of acquittal was based.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the petitioners-convicts due to biased investigation, material contradictions, and uncertainties in the evidence. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment of acquittal, citing explanations for delay in FIR registration, the establishment of motive, and immaterial discrepancies and contradictions.
Issues: The primary issue was the justification of the appellate court's reversal of the judgment of acquittal without considering all aspects of the case and without dealing with the points on which the judgment of acquittal was based.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the principles of interference in appeal against acquittal, including the importance of not lightly interfering with the judgment of acquittal, the need for strong and compelling reasons to differ with the findings of acquittal, and the presumption of innocence. It also highlights the appellate court's responsibility to consider and review the entire evidence before reversing a judgment of acquittal.
Final Decision: The judgment passed by the appellate court was set aside, and the Criminal Revision No.241 of 2013 filed by the convicts was allowed, while Criminal Revision No.1057 of 2013 filed by the first informant for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
By this judgment, CRR No.241 of 2013 and CRR No.1057 of 2013 arising from a common judgment of the Judicial Magistrate shall stand disposed of. CRR No.241 of 2013 has been filed by the convicts, whereas CRR No.1057 of 2013 has been filed by the first informant-injured, seeking enhancement of the sentence.
2. In the considered view of this Court, primary question which arises is:-
"Whether the appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate without considering all aspects of the case and without dealing with the points on which the judgment of acquittal was based and to what extent Court can interfere in appeal against acquittal?
3. In the present case, learned Judicial Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, acquitted the petitioners-convicts vide judgment dated 28.10.2011, reversed by the learned Court of Sessions in appeal. Although, detailed facts have been given in the judgment passed, however, some facts are required to be noticed.
4. Petitioners in CRR No.241 of 2013 were sent to face trial for the offence punishable under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 07.03.2006, at about 7.00 a.m. when first informant-injured Balbir Singh was going to Gurudwara in the village, Nirmal Singh son of Bant Singh met him in the street and threatened him to get the land demarcated and vacate the encroached land, failing which he would be taught a lesson. In the meanwhile, petitioner Mukand Singh etc. appeared on the spot, carrying wooden battens and they started abusing him and threatened him to leave the village after disposing of his house failing which he would be done to death.
5. First informant claims that he made a request with his folded hands to the accused claiming to be a poor fellow and cannot compete with them. On hearing noise, his son Kulwinder Singh and daughter Rajprit Kaur came out from his house and and Mukand Singh gave a blow with wooden batten (lathi) to Rajprit Kaur on the middle finger of her right hand, whereas petitioners Gurprit, Gurdeep and Labh Singh rushed towards him along with their respective weapons and started giving him blows. Gurprit gave a blow on his left foot. He along with his children ran towards his house. Gurdip threw a stone towards Kulwinder which hit on his nose. Whereas stone thrown by Gurdip hit on the left eye of Kulwinder. Rajprit Kaur also suffered injuries from the stone on her head on the right side and on the left toe. All of them bolted their entry gate after entering their house in order to save themselves otherwise severe injuries would have been inflicted upon them.
6. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt, examined Balbir Singh, injured/first informant as PW1, Kulwinder Singh as PW2 and Rajprit Kaur as PW4. Investigating Officer ASI Tarsem Lal appeared as PW3.
7. Prosecution also examined Dr. M.K.Bhadu as Ex.PW5, who medico legally examined the first informant. Dr. S.L.Aggarwal was examined as PW6, who has conducted X-ray examination of injured Kulwinder Singh and Balbir Singh.
8. In documentary evidence, application moved by the police to the doctor seeking opinion on the condition of the injured was exhibited as Ex.PB, statement of complainant/first informant as Ex.PA, police proceedings as Ex.PC, endorsement as Ex. PD, FIR as Ex.PE, site/lay out plan as Ex.PF and application moved to the doctor regarding declaration of injuries as Ex.PG.
9. Accused persons were confronted with the incriminating material in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C..
10. In defence, accused proved on filed copy of medico-legal report of Malkiat Kaur as Ex.D1 and copy of Charge-sheet as Ex.D2.
11. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has given following reasons to acquit:-
(1) The investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer is in total mess. Investigating Officer when appeared in evidence has admitted that he had scribed DDR on 08.
