Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajinder K. Singla, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant bearing No.COMI/08/2017 dated 30th of January, 2017 under Sections 323/341/354/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nurmahal acquitting the respondents.

2. As per the contents of the complaint it was alleged that on 16^th of November, 2016 accused in connivance with each other started digging the land to install pole outside the house of the complainant and when the complainant tried to stop them from doing so she was given slap blows by respondents No.2 & 3 and accused No.4 & 5 after trespassing into the house of the complainant gave pushes-blows. The respondents were summoned and charges were framed against them qua offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC and they were put to trial.

3. After analyzing the evidence threadbare the Trial Court found that the testimony of the complainant herself was enough to demolish the case as neither there was any medical examination nor the complainant ever approached the police as per her own admission and thus, the evidence was too discrepant to hold the respondents guilty.

4. While assailing the judgment of acquittal Ld. Counsel for the complainant/applicant argues that the Trial Court misdirected itself in dismissing the complaint solely for the reason that the medical examination was missing to prove the injuries on the body of the complainant. Reliance is being placed upon Section 134 of the Evidence Act. He further relies upon law laid down by the Apex Court in 'Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and others vs. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 SCC 173'.

5. There can't be any dispute with the proposition as canvassed in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary's case (Supra). Indeed injured witness's testimony itself is sufficient but the same has to be of a startling character. Herein the drawback in whole of the testimony of the complainant is that she has failed to prove that she was indeed injured. She admitted that she did not know who was present at the time of installation of pole and she could not say as to why and how the occurrence took place. She further admits that she never got herself examined from the hospital. Even so she never approached the police. It was in these circumstances that the Trial Court found that the testimony of the complainant/applicant was not trustworthy.

6. Ld. Counsel has not been able to point out that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Trial Court are result of misreading of evidence or can be said to be not a possible view. It is also not the case that any evidence on record was ignored by the Trial Court. The law w.r.t. exercise of appellate jurisdiction stands settled by Four Judges Bench of Apex Court in case of Bansidhar Mohanty vs. State of Orissa, reported as AIR 1955 Supreme Court 585 wherein it was held as under :

"xx xx xx

4. The principles on which the High Court should act in an appeal from an order of acquittal have been quite clearly laid down by the Privy Council in the case of -- 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp. 229-230 (A). The same principles have been so often reiterated by this Court that it is hardly necessary to restate them 'in extenso'.

It will be sufficient to refer to the decisions of this Court in -- 'Surajpal Singh v. The State', AIR 1952 Supreme Court 52; - 'Puran v. State of Punjab', AIR 1953 Supreme Court 459 and 'Narayan Ittiravi v. State of Travancore-Cochin' AIR 1953 Supreme Court 478. It is now well settled by the abovementioned decisions that while in an appeal under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code of the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, nevertheless, in exercising the power conferred by the Code the High Court will give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (i) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of witnesses; (ii) the presumption