234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)

Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Baljit Kaur ...Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:3)

(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:9)

(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:17)ti(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:27)(cid:9)

(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:28)

DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J .

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.08.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in a case bearing FIR No. 28 dated 23.05.2018 registered at Police Station Kahnuwan under Sections 302, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), where respondent Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted.

2. The facts in brief emanating from the pleadings of the present appeal are that the appellant/complainant, namely, Baljit Kaur, got her statement recorded, which led to registration of the present FIR alleging therein that on 23.05.2018, she, along with her husband and son, went to Baba Takhia to serve Langar. In the meantime, both the accused, namely Santokh Singh, armed with a danda, and Jasbir Singh, also known as Bittu, empty-handed, came there and said that they would teach them a lesson for serving Langar at the place of Peer Baba. It is alleged that accused Santokh Singh gave a danda blow on the head of the complainant’s husband, Chanchal Singh, who, on receipt of the same, fell. Thereafter, accused Jasbir Singh, also known as Bittu, took the danda from Santokh Singh and attempted to hit the complainant; however, she managed to evade the blow, and the danda struck Santokh Singh on the head. The complainant and her son raised alarm, and on hearing the same, the complainant’s daughter-in-law and other people gathered at the spot, and the accused fled away from the place along with a danda while hurling threats at them.

3. On registration of the said FIR, investigation was carried out and a challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Court. Finding a prima facie case under Sections 302 and 506 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under the aforementioned sections against both accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, including Harpreet Kaur, daughter-in-law, as PW-1, complainant Baljit Kaur as PW-2, IO Surinder Pal as PW-3 and Dr. Parminder Singh as PW-10. Along with other exhibits, the report of the chemical examiner/ Histopathology and the opinion of the doctor were also tendered in evidence as Ex. P-23 and P-24, respectively. 5. Statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the present case. No witness was also examined in their defence.

6. The trial Court, after considering the medical evidence produced, i.e. report of chemical examiner/Histopathology (Ex. P-23) and opinion of the doctor (Ex. P-24), held both the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 IPC and acquitted them.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution and acquitted the accused/respondent Nos . 2 and 3 based on conjectures and surmises. The material witne