In cases of acquittal, there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless there is perversity of facts and law.

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

1. The instant application under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been moved by applicant Mohinder Singh with a prayer for grant of leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 23.02.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Batala in complaint case No.9 of 2012 titled as Mohinder Singh Vs. Lakhwinder Singh and others, whereby the respondents had been acquitted of charges of offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 452, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application are that the aforementioned criminal complaint had been filed by the applicant-complainant Mohinder Singh on the allegations that his son Amrik Singh had purchased a house situated within Lal Dora of village Basrawan, Tehsil Batala from sons and wife of Kundan Singh, who was the original owner of the said house and had died in the year 1993. It was alleged that eight persons named as accused in the complaint were trying to interfere in possession of the complainant and his family over this house and had tried to take forcible possession thereof and in this regard a complaint was filed before the police on 09.05.2011. It was alleged that on 25.05.2011, the accused named in the complaint along with one Ramanjit Singh, who had subsequently died, criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant at about 6 pm while being armed with weapons. The complainant had closed the door of his house but the assailants demolished the boundary wall of the same and entered inside. The accused Lakhwinder Singh had made an exhortation by saying ‘fad lo jaano maar do’, accused Bachitar Singh had given a dang blow on the right hand of his wife Jasbir Kaur and accused Bikramjit Singh (since declared proclaimed person) had hit on her neck. The complainant and his family members raised alarm, on hearing which the neighbourers had gathered and had saved the complainant and his family members from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away with their respective weapons. The complainant reported the matter to the police but no action was taken. Rather a false case was registered against him and his family members on the complaint of the accused. Therefore, he prayed for taking penal action against the culprits.

3. On presentation of the complaint, the case was fixed for producing preliminary evidence. The complainant examined 6 witnesses including himself and thereafter, learned trial Magistrate issued process against the present respondents i.e. accused-Lakhwinder Singh, Bachittar Singh and Bikramjit Singh though eight persons had been named in the complaint and the respondents were summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 342 and 452 of IPC.

4. After procuring the presence of the respondents accused, pre-charge evidence was recorded by learned trial Court. The complainant produced 5 witnesses, namely, CW-1 Bikramjit Singh, CW-3 Amrik Singh, CW-4 Jasvir Kaur, CW-5 Lakhwinder Kaur and himself stepped into the witness box as CW-2. Thereafter the precharge evidence was closed.

5. On finding a prima facie case, the respondents-accused, Lakhwinder Singh and Bachittar Singh, were chargesheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 342 and 452 of IPC. The accused Bikramjit Singh had absented himself and was declared a proclaimed person.

6. In after charge evidence, the accused sought to further cross-examine CW-2 complainant Mohinder Singh and CW-4 Jasbir Kaur, and they were accordingly, further cross-examined.

7. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed themselves to be innocent and pleaded false implication.

8. In defence evidence, the respondents-accused tendered Ex.D-1 copy of charge sheet filed against them in case bearing FIR No. 50 dated 27.05.2011, titled as State Vs. Mohinder Singh and others.

9. On appra