Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Respondents No. 2 to 10 had faced trial, in a complaint filed against them by the applicant, qua commission of offence

punishable under Sections 148, 323, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 21.3.2013 acquitted respondents No. 2 to 10. Hence, the present application u/s

378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to file an appeal by the complainant. I have heard the learned counsel for the

applicant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 28.02.2004, Ram Lal, brother of the complainant, was coming from Dasuya to village Talwandi

Kalan at about 6.30 p.m. in a three wheeler. In that tempo, Kuldip Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and Shashi Kumar were also

travelling. When the tempo had crossed Mukerian Town, then Kuldip Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and Shashi Kumar started spitting

on Ram Lal after consuming Pan Prag. When Ram Lal raised objection, the said persons started abusing him in the name of his Caste. Hot words

were exchanged between accused and Ram Lal. Ram Lal got down from the tempo (three wheeler) at the bus stop of Talwandi Kala. When Ram

Lal was proceeding towards his house, then Kuldip Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, and Shashi Kumar followed him and manhandled him

and abused him in the name of his caste. Thereafter, the accused left for Musah Pur in tempo. Ram Lal reached home and narrated the occurrence

to the complainant. On hearing noise, Ram Lal went to the roof of the house. It was about 7.15 p.m. and Ram Lal saw that many persons armed

with deadly weapons were coming towards their house. An information was given to the Police. All the accused trespassed into the house of the

complainant armed with deadly weapons. A fight took place between the accused and the Mob. Accused suffered injuries at the hands of the

Mob. Then all the accused fled away from the spot.

Learned trial Court, while acquitting respondents No. 2 to 10 of the charges framed against them, held that the complaint in question had been

filed after commitment of Sessions trial No. 13 of 11.6.2004 against Harbans Lal and Hans Raj as well as PW2 Ram Lal. In case any occurrence,

as alleged, had taken place then the Investigating Officer would have recorded the statements of the witnesses. The complaint was filed after three

months of the alleged occurrence. Thus, learned trial Court rightly held that the delay in filing the complaint was unexplained. Further learned trial

Court held that the Doctor, who had medically examined Harbans Lal and Hans Raj, had not been examined. Hence, the best available evidence

had been withheld by the complainant. Harbans Lal and Hans Raj, injured had also not been examined by the complainant. The said witnesses

were convicted in the murder case instituted against them by the accused party. In these circumstances, it can be gathered that the complaint in

question was filed to create a defence in the murder case. The version put forth by the complainant party was not believed in the murder case and

the judgment of the said case was placed on record as Exhibit D1.

The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out

any misreading of evidence by the trial Court.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one

which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Hansa Singh , while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-

We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar

Vs. State of Rajasthan, , which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were

perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a

reason calling for interference.

To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another, and in Chandrappa and

Others Vs. State of Karnataka, . Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Supreme

Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing

as under:

8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its

extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to

re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or

condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for

presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is

presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on

record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the

evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived

at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the

appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An

order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are ""compelling and substantial reasons"", for doing so. If the order is ""clearly

unreasonable"", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has

ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial

Court depending on the materials placed

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, the learned trial Court had, thus, rightly acquitted the accused of the charge

framed against them. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.