Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3159
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Satyabir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Jagdev And Others - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1945 of 2014
Decided On : 15-01-2018
J.P. Sharma, Adv.
Interference with judgments of acquittal should only occur when there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so, and the appellate court is competent to re-appreciate, reconsider, and review the evidence and take its own decision.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Complaint - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the complainant and the witnesses, the injuries sustained by the victim, and the cancellation of the FIR. The court considered the testimonies of the witnesses and the lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also referred to legal principles from previous cases regarding interference with judgments of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused caused injuries to the victim and threatened her to death. The trial court acquitted some of the accused based on the lack of evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially regarding the threatening to death of the victim. The court also referred to legal principles regarding interference with judgments of acquittal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence presented by the complainant and the witnesses, the injuries sustained by the victim, and the cancellation of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt and referred to legal principles regarding interference with judgments of acquittal.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous application seeking leave to appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J —The respondents had faced trial in criminal complaint No. 175 of 2010 under Sections 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mahindergarh. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 14.10.2014 ordered the acquittal of the respondents-Jagdev, Leela Ram, Rattan Singh and Bhim Singh of the charges framed against them. Hence, the present application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the applicant-complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that on 5.8.2009 at about 8.00 a.m., mother of the complainant-Bhuri Devi, when went to adjacent room then accused-Jagdev, Leela Ram, Rattan Singh, Bhagmal stopped her and Ragbir, having a stick in his hand, along with Bhim Singh also came there. Bhagmal gave a fist blow on her rib and Jagdev twisted her hand and pushed her out from the house and threatened her to death. On raising alarm, Shri Naryan alongwith other persons of the village gathered there. On being unconscious, Bhuri Devi was admitted to Hospital and, on medico legal examination, a fracture was found in her hand and FIR No.203 dated 18.9.2009 was registered but since in connivance with the accused, the investigation agencies cancelled the FIR, the present complaint was filed.
3. In the preliminary evidence, the complainant has examined Constable Guljari Lal as CW1 and Ram Chander Sharma as CW2, Bhuri Devi as CW3, Shri Narayan as CW4 and Satyabir Singh, CW5- complainant. Thereafter, the accused were summoned to face the trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/325/506/34 IPC.
4. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant has examined HC Sanjay Singh as CW1, Shri Narayan as CW2, Bhuri Devi as CW3, Dr. Kanwar Singh as CW4, CW5-Sataybir Singh, complainant. Thereafter, the accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegation and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. However, no defence evidence was led. The trial Court, thereafter, acquitted the respondentsaccused. Operative part of the order of the trial Court is as under:-
"After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it comes to the considered opinion of this Court that as complainant has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused namely Ragbir and Bhagmal beyond reasonable doubt but failed to prove the guilt of the remaining accused namely Jagdev Leela Ram, Rattan and Bhim beyond reasonable doubt because in the complaint it is specifically mentioned that on 5.8.2009 at arount 8.00 am when the injured Bhuri Devi was present at her adjacent home then Ragbir gave a blow of stick on her left knee and Bhagmal gave her a fist blow on her left rib as these injuries have proved by Dr, Kanwar Singh as CW4 through his affidavit Ex.CW4/A in which he stated that Bhuri Devi sustained two injuries one on her left knee and other on her chest and a fracture was found on her chest. Even the cancellation of FIR No 203 dated 18.9.2009 attached with the protest petition shows the original MLR as well as X-Ray films and X-ray report which corroborated the testimonies of the complainant as well of the injured version as CW3 Bhuri Devi. Even certified copy of MLR is Ex.CW2/A and X-ray report is Ex.CW2/B and FIR as Ex.CW1/A proves the same. It is pertinent to mention here that in the complaint it is mentioned that Shri Narayan being the neighbour of Bhuri Devi also reached on the spot who witnessed the whole incident. Similarly CW3 Bhuri Devi in a very categorical manner stated the same version. CW2 Shri Narayan the eye witness also stated that Bhagmal gave a fist blow on her left rib and Ragbir gave a blow of lat
