IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-482-2022 Date of Decision:- 06.04.2026 Shushma Devi @ Shushma Rani and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ankit Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Petitioners Shushma Devi alias Shushma Rani, Sanjeev Kumar and Manoj Kumar have filed criminal revision against impugned judgment dated 03.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which judgment passed by learned trial Court/Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar dated 24.07.2018 was set aside and case was remanded back to trial Court for re-trial from the stage of evidence, after recording testimony of PW2 Investigating Officer, as detailed therein.

2. Learned counsel representing petitioners argued that in the case in hand, FIR No. 58 dated 05.04.2015 under Section 354-B, 323, 506, 34 IPC Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur was registered on the statement of complainant Multan Singh. After facing trial, petitioners were acquitted in IPC Challan No. 83 of 2016 vide judgment dated 24.07.2018. Learned trial Court concluded that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt, which resulted into aforesaid judgment of acquittal. Before trial Court, prosecution was given sufficient opportunity to conclude their evidence, which was finally closed by order vide order dated 06.03.2018. Therefore, learned First Appellate Court wrongly set aside judgment of acquittal and it was sent back to trial Court for re-trial to conclude testimony of PW2 Investigating Officer. Reasoning given by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur is not justified. Statement of prosecutrix recorded in Court as well as her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was duly exhibited and appreciated by learned trial Court. There was no reason to set aside well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar. Basic principles dealing with judgment of acquittal are not properly considered by First Appellate Court. To support his arguments, learned counsel representing petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1467-1468 of 2005, decided on 26.2.2016, case titled “Sadhu Saran Singh Versus State of U.P. and Ors.” cited in 2016 (4) SCC 357 : Law Finder Doc Id # 745816, relevant paras No. 18 and 19 of said judgment runs as under:-

“18. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent…….

19. This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate Court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the Court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate Court with such an order is imperative.”

He further referred to judgment of Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 853 of 2006, decided on 15.2.2007, case titled “Chandrappa and others Versus State of Karnataka” cited in 2007 (2) SCC(Cri) 325