IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 CRA-AS-75-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.04.2026.

RAVINDER SINGH ... Appellant(s)

VERSUS SAHIB SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Ankit Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-A-2670-MA-2018 For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed.

Leave to appeal is granted.

CRA-AS-75-2026 The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

11.09.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Sessions Case bearing No.24 of 2016 dated 06.08.2016/05.10.2016, arising out of FIR bearing No.100 dated 25.05.2014, under Sections 308, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, whereby the respondents No.1 to 3/accused had been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 308, 323 and 34 of the IPC after noticing that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2014, an intimation was received by the police regarding admission of injured persons in the hospital, pursuant to which the statement of the complainant, Rajinder Singh, was recorded. The complainant stated that on 17.05.2014, while he along with his father Gulzar Singh was waiting at the Bus Stand, Bhakna Kalan, certain accused persons, namely Sahib Singh, Angrej Singh and Shera, all armed with sharp-edged weapons, approached them and launched an assault. It is alleged that the accused inflicted multiple injuries upon the father of the complainant, including blows on the head, hand, shoulder and thigh. When the complainant intervened, he was also assaulted and sustained injuries. Upon raising alarm, other persons reached the spot, whereafter the accused fled away with their respective weapons. The injured were thereafter taken to the hospital for medical treatment. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a prior dispute between the complainant and one of the accused. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and medico-legal reports were obtained. On receipt of X-ray report, injury no.1 on the person of Ravinder Singh was declared to be grievous in nature and offence under Section 325 was subsequently added. Eventually, Section 308 of the IPC was also added. On completion of investigation, final report was presented and copies of the same were supplied to the accused under Sectio 207 Cr.P.C.

3. The offence under Section 308 of the IPC being triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

4. Arguments on charge were heard and finding prima facie sufficient grounds, charges for commission of offences under Sections 308, 323 and 34 of the IPC were framed against respondents No.1 to 3/accused.

5. No charge, however, for commission of offence under Section 325 IPC was framed. The respondents No.1 to 3/accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:

7. Upon closure of prosecution evidence, on recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent-accused when confronted with evidence appearing against them, denied all the evidence and pleaded false implication. The accused pleaded that prior to the occurrence in question, a quarrel had taken place between Sahib Singh and cousin of the complainant at a Barber shop, which was subsequently settled in the presence of the village Panchayat. It is stated that although Bagha Singh, cousin of the complainant, had expressed regret, he continued to bear a grudge against Sahib Singh and it is on account of the prior enmity, that the present case has been falsely foisted upon the respondents–accused, despite their having no role in the alleged occurrence. It was further pleaded that the injur