IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

230 Date of decision: 16.02.2026 RAMESH SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Vishavdeep Singh Rana, Advocate As Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-9507-2016 Prayer in the application is for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the revision.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 35 days in filing the revision is condoned.

CRR-1133-2016 Aggrieved of the judgments passed by the Judicial Magistrate

1^st Class, Jalalabad acquitting the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 06.01.2015 and from the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide judgment dated 24.08.2015, the present petition has been filed.

2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case registered on the statement of complainant Remesh Singh that in the intervening night of 24/25/11/10, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and committed the offence of rioting and criminal trespass by entering into fields of complainant besides they all committed mischief by damaging the wheat crops of the complainant. Thereafter investigation was initiated. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after formal investigation of the case the challan was presented in the court.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents alongwith report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. were supplied to accused free of costs as envisaged u/s 207 Cr. P.C.

4. After hearing APP as well as the defence counsel, a prima facie case was found to have been made out against accused-respondents u/s 448/447/148/149 IPC. Respondents were charge sheeted accordingly. Contents of charge were read over to them in Punjabi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Onus to prove the case was on prosecution and to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Remesh Singh as PW1, Remesh Singh s/o Balbir Singh as PW2, ASI Darshan Lal as PW3, Basti Ram Patwari as PW4, HC Harmit Lal as PW5, Sandeep Kumar PW6 and ASI Harkesh Kumar as PW7. Thereafter, APP closed the prosecution evidence.

6. After closure of evidence all incriminating circumstances were put to accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. which they denied and pleaded innocence. However, the accused-respondent(s) did not lead any evidence in defence and closed defence evidence.”

7. The State had vehemently argued that the accused- respondent(s) had committed the offence of rioting and committed criminal trespass in furtherance of a common intention by entering into the premises of the complainant-petitioner and also caused damage to his wheat crops, which, such fact is fully corroborated by the prosecution witnesses, hence, the respondent-accused ought to be convicted.

8. The defence raised by the respondents herein was to the effect that PW-1 Ramesh Singh (Complainant) had admitted that he was informed about the occurrence and the Khewat No. 109, wherein the alleged occurrence took place, was jointly owned by complainant and the accused persons. The said fact was also admitted in the cross-examination of PW-4- Basti Ram Patwari who proved the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdwari Ex. PW/4 alongwith with the copy of the site plan. It was also argued that the investigation conducted by the Police officials, failed to notice that the photographs were not of the actual place of occurrence and it did not specify the rectangle number or killa number of the land concerned. Further, the eye-witness Ramesh Singh, son of Balbir Singh admitted to having witnessed the incident while ploughing his land from a distance of about 10 killas. Further submission has been raised that there was an inordinate delay of more than 15 days in lodging of the FIR in the present case.

9. Upon consideration of the respective arguments, the trial Court recorded its finding and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case