Amar Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri whereby learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri has acquitted the accused-respondents.

Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused under Sections 323, 295-A, 452, 341, 506 and 34 IPC on 14.09.2010 in which the complainant has averred that he is an Amritdhari Singh and the accused are related to each other accused No. 2 is the wife and accused No. 3 is the son of accused No. 1. Complainant further averred that on 03.09.2010 at about 3.45 p.m., he was present in his Moduwala field and irrigating his agricultural property from his motor connection, where accused came on motorcycle. Complainant further averred that the accused started asking to give water from his motor for irrigation of their property, but that the complainant showed his inability, at which they became angry. Complainant further averred that accused No. 3 Gagandeep Singh who was armed with a kahi carved out a water course towards his fields with the kahi, at which the complainant reached the motor room to switch off the electric motor. Complainant further averred that accused No. 2 raised lalkara at which accused No. 1 Gurmail Singh armed with a soti entered into the motor room and caught the complainant from his beard and tried to pull out the complainant from the motor room and gave kick blows in the stomach of the complainant. Complainant further averred that accused No. 1 then pulled out the complainant from the motor room and that accused Gagandeep Singh then gave kahi blows to the complainant, who tried to save himself and that the kahi hit him between the little finger and ring finger of the right hand. Complainant further averred that accused Gurmail Singh then gave soti blows to the right side of the head of the complainant and the left thigh of the complainant. Complainant further averred that accused No. 2 encouraged the accused No. 1 and 3 to kill the complainant. Complainant further averred that accused No. 1 and 3 pushed the complainant in the water course and removed the Gatra and crushed the same with their feet and used filthy words for it and also pulled out the hair from the beard of the complainant. Complainant further averred that he then raised alarm and that in the mean while Pritam Singh, Bura Singh came at the spot and saw the occurrence and rescued the complainant and that Sukhpal Sigh then took the complainant to Dhuri to get him medico legally examined. Complainant further averred that the motive behind the attack was the accused demanded water to irrigate their agricultural land from the complainant to which the complainant did not agree. Complainant further averred that the police came to the hospital but his statement was not recorded and rather a clandra u/s. 107/151 Cr.P.C. was presented and hence the instant complaint.

On the basis of preliminary evidence, notice of accusation for commission of an offence punishable Sections 323, 295-A, 452, 341, 506 and 34 IPC was served upon the accused-respondents to which they pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial.

The complainant, in order to prove its case, examined Jagdev Sharma, Draftsman as CW 1, Dr. Narinder Kumar as CW 2. Complainant himself stepped into the witness box as CW 3 and examined Pritam Singh as CW 4, Vinod Kumar as CW 5, Sukhpal Singh as CW 6 and AMHC Sarbjit Singh as CW 7.

Thereafter, the accused-respondents were summoned under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC vide order dated 16.08.2012.

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused respondents, vide impugned judgment dated 08.05.2013. Hence, this application for grant of leave to appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the impugned judgment.

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-

"17 Having heard both the sides at length, I find myself agreeing with the arguments of the ld. Defence counsel. The version of the complainant is that the accused came at the spot and then asked for water for the purpose of irrigation from the complainant to which the complainant did not agree and that then accused No. 3 carved out a water course with the kahi with which he was armed and that the complainant then went to the motor room to witch off the motor, where accused No. 1 Gurmail Singh entered the motor room and caught the complainant from his beard and tried to pull out the complainant from the motor room and gave kick blows in the stomach of the complainant and that then accused No. 1 Gurmail Singh pulled out the complainant from the motor room where accused No. 3 Gagandeep Singh gave blow with Kahi to the complainant and then accused No. 1 Gurmail Singh gave blow with soti on the right side of the head of the complainant and on the left thigh of the complainant and that then accused No. 1 and 3 pushed the complainant in the water course. However, it is to be noticed that firstly complainant in his cross examination stated that prior to his falling in the water course, the only suffered injuries by way of sticks and that he thereafter fell unconscious and regained consciousness after about half an hour. Further CW 2 Pritam Singh in his cross examination firstly disclosed that he is related to the complainant and then went on to state that he did not know as to how many injuries were received by Amar Singh and what was the seat of injuries. Further, it is to be noticed that CW 4 Dr. Narinder Kumar clearly stated that injury No. 3 on the person of the complainant could not have been caused by a kahi. Furthermore, it is to be noticed that CW 5 Sukhpal Singh, who is the eye witness and also the son of the complainant, in his cross examination brought forth a completely new version and stated that the entire occurrence had taken place in the water course. He further stated that accused own no land their motor. Thus, the conclusion which can be derived from all the above instances is that firstly the doctor has completely ruled out that injury No. 3 on the person of the complainant could have been caused by a kahi as alleged by the complainant. Further, it is to be seen that the alleged eye witness CW 5 Sukhpal Singh has stated that no occurrence took place in or near the motor and that the entire occurrence had taken place in the water course, which is in complete contradiction to the entire version of the complainant as elucidated by him in his complaint and examination in chief. Furthermore, it is to be seen had it has also come forth in the evidence that accused own no land near the motor of the complainant and thus the motive also completely fails as when there is no land of the accused near the motor of the complainant, the question of asking for water from the motor of the complainant does not arise. All the above contradictions and improvements raised a grave shadow of doubt on the version put forth by the complainant and thus, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, they are hereby acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stands discharged. File be consigned to the record room."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar @ Gidda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 2200 : (2014) AIRSCW 2278 : (2014) CriLJ 2365 : (2014) 4 SCALE 693 : (2014) 5 SCC 730 has held as under:

"10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup and Others vs. The King-EmperorAIR 1934 227 (Privy Council) highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years.

As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh and Others Vs. The State, AIR 1952 SC 52 : (1952) CriLJ 331 : (1952) 1 SCR 193 , while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, "the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."

The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu Vs. The State, AIR 1954 SC 1 , Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 637 , Atley Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 807 : (1955) CriLJ 1653 , Aher Raja Khima Vs. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 : (1956) CriLJ 426 : (1955) 2 SCR 1285 , Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216 : (1957) CriLJ 481 , M.G. Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 : (1963) 2 SCR 405 , Noor Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286 : (1964) CriLJ 167 : (1964) 4 SCR 521 , Khedu Mohton and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 66 : (1971) CriLJ 20 : (1970) 2 SCC 450 : (1970) 1 SCC(Cri) 479 : (1971) 1 SCR 839 , Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 : (1973) CriLJ 1783 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489 , Lekha Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 2241 : (1973) 2 SCC 424 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 820 , Khem Karan and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Another, AIR 1974 SC 1567 : (1974) CriLJ 1033 : (1974) 76 PLR 677 : (1974) 4 SCC 603 : (1974) SCC(Cri) 639 : (1974) 3 SCR 863 : (1974) 6 UJ 389 , Bishan Singh, Gurdial Singh, Hardial Singh, Surjit Singh, Harbans Singh and Hazur Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 2443 : (1973) CriLJ 1596 : (1974) 3 SCC 288 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 914 : (1973) 5 UJ 755 , Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 424 : (1978) CriLJ 489 : (1978) 1 SCC 228 : (1978) SCC(Cri) 108 : (1978) 2 SCR 471 , K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 387 : (1980) CriLJ 812 : (1979) 1 SCC 355 : (1979) SCC(Cri) 305 : (1979) 2 SCR 363 : (1979) 11 UJ 52 , Tota Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1083 : (1987) CriLJ 974 : (1987) 2 Crimes 54 : (1987) 2 JT 20 : (1987) 1 SCALE 657 : (1987) 2 SCC 529 : (1987) 2 SCR 747 , Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 280 : (1994) CriLJ 3836 : (1994) 3 Crimes 633 : (1994) 6 JT 502 : (1994) 4 SCALE 484 : (1995) 1 SCC 248 : (1994) 4 SCR 335 Supp , Madan Lal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1998 SC 386 : (1998) CriLJ 667 : (1997) 7 JT 357 : (1997) 5 SCALE 461 : (1997) 7 SCC 677 : (1997) 3 SCR 337 Supp , Sambasivan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 1 AD 505 : AIR 1998 SC 2107 : (1998) CriLJ 2924 : (1998) 3 JT 742 : (1998) 3 SCALE 462 : (1998) 5 SCC 412 : (1998) 3 SCR 280 : (1998) AIRSCW 1986 : (1998) 4 Supreme 562 , Bhagwan Singh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1621 : (2002) CriLJ 2024 : (2002) 2 Crimes 42 : (2002) 3 JT 387 : (2002) 3 SCALE 169 : (2002) 4 SCC 85 : (2002) AIRSCW 1532 : (2002) 2 Supreme 567 , Harijana Thirupala and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, AIR 2002 SC 2821 : (2002) CriLJ 3751 : (2002) 3 Crimes 87 : (2002) 5 JT 551 : (2002) 5 SCALE 434 : (2002) 6 SCC 470 : (2002) 1 SCR 379 Supp : (2002) AIRSCW 3199 : (2002) 5 Supreme 229 , C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, AIR 2003 SC 182 : (2006) 4 BC 295 : (2002) 112 CompCas 611 : (2003) CriLJ 411 : (2003) 1 SCC 1 : (2003) 1 UJ 36 , State of Karnataka Vs. K. Gopalakrishna, AIR 2005 SC 1014 : (2005) CriLJ 1436 : (2005) 1 DMC 245 : (2005) 2 JT 389 : (2005) 9 SCC 291 : (2005) AIRSCW 949 : (2005) 1 Supreme 735 , State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another, (2007) 5 JT 146 : (2007) 3 SCALE 740 : (2007) 3 SCC 755 : (2007) 3 SCR 507 and Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) CriLJ 2136 : (2007) 3 JT 316 : (2007) 3 SCALE 90 : (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCR 630 . It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court."

Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any error in law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.

As such, application for leave to appeal is dismissed on merit.