Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Acquittal: Cites Lack of Evidence, Counter-Blast Allegations, and Reaffirms High Bar for Overturning Acquittals - 2025-05-15

Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Property Dispute, Citing Insufficient Evidence and Counter-Blast Claims

Chandigarh: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana recently dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Harwinder Singh , thereby upholding the acquittal of his brother (respondent No. 2) in a case involving alleged trespass and misappropriation of articles stemming from a property dispute. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri , in the judgment dated May 23, 2024, found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent acquittals by two lower courts.

Background of the Dispute

The case, CRR No. 2938 of 2017, originated from a complaint filed by Harwinder Singh against his brother. The petitioner alleged that on July 12, 2008, due to a property dispute, his brother had quarreled with him, trespassed into his house by breaking the lock, sold dowry articles belonging to the petitioner's wife, and threatened him against entering the house. The petitioner also claimed his brother had involved him and other family members in a false case.

The accused, respondent No. 2, was first acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, by a judgment dated February 2, 2015. This acquittal was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on May 2, 2016. Harwinder Singh then challenged these acquittals before the High Court.

High Court's Rationale for Dismissal

The High Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the case records, found that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Puri highlighted several critical deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence:

Counter-Blast Litigation: The Court noted that "the present case is a counter-blast to case, which was filed by the accused against the complainant."

Lack of Corroborative Evidence: Key allegations remained unproven. The judgment pointed out that "date of occurrence has not been mentioned in the FIR and bills of the articles or ownership over the articles, which were alleged to have been misappropriated, has not been brought on record."

Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies: There were "material discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses."

Failure to Prove Ownership/Possession: The prosecution failed to prove that "the complainant is the owner or in possession of the property, over which, the alleged offence is said to have been committed."

No Recovery: Crucially, "no recovery of articles has been effected from the accused."

The Court emphasized the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In this instance, it was found that "only vague allegations have been levelled against the private respondent."

Legal Principles Reaffirmed

Justice Puri reiterated well-settled legal principles regarding the limited scope of interference by an appellate or revisional court in an order of acquittal. The judgment stated:

> "The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt."

The Court cited several Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including: * Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748 * Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479 * Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 * A Division Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of Punjab Vs. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775 , which held that the "presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court."

Final Decision

Concluding that the learned counsel for the petitioner had "failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned Courts below, which warrants any interference," the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The Court found no grounds to overturn the concurrent findings of acquittal by the trial court and the first appellate court. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.