Harbans Singh vs K.L. Baghla

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present application has been filed u/s 378(4) CrPC for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal

dated 16.9.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint

against the respondent by alleging that the respondent circulated a letter using defamatory remarks against the petitioner and the same was sent to

variants authorities and thereafter it was published in the local newspaper in the name of Daily Abhor Tasveer dated 11.12.2002 alleging that the

petitioner has misused school funds and has earned money by taking illegal gratification. The complaint was filed under Sections 500, 506 IPC and

vide judgment dated 6.6.2009, the respondent was convicted and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The

period already undergone by the convict during trial was to be set off against the substantive sentence.

The respondent filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 6.6.2009 before Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and judgment

of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside and the respondent was acquitted of the charges.

The present application for leave to appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of acquittal of respondent on the ground that well reasoned

judgment of the trial Court has wrongly been set aside inspite of the fact that editor of newspaper was examined as witness who had specifically

stated that he had published the news on the basis of letter given by the respondent.

The judgment of acquittal has been passed only on the basis of that letter given by respondent No. 2 was destroyed by the editor and the same

could not be produced before the Court. The petitioner appeared as PW1 and allegations made in the complaint were duly proved. The judgment

of the Appellate Court in acquitting the respondent is contrary to evidence available on record.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the judgment of both the Courts bow and other documents on

the filed.

Admittedly, the complainant himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and he has also examined CW1 Rajesh Sachdeva in support of his

case but he could conclude his evidence despite of granting number of opportunities and ultimately his evidence was closed by court order which

was never challenged by the petitioner. The alleged letter written by respondent to editor of the newspaper which was published was not

produced. Even no person was examined to prove that reputation of the petitioner has been lowered down in the eyes of public. The names of

lecturers mentioned in the complaint were also not examined. As per allegations in the complaint, names of Gurbir Singh, Punjabi Lecturer and

Preetpal Singh, English Lecturer in whose presence the incident dated 16.6.2002 took place could not be proved as they were not examined. As

per allegations in the complaint, the copies of the letters were sent to different authorities, including Chief Minister, Punjab, Education Minister and

some other officials but there was no evidence to show that these copies were actually sent as no evidence from the office of those authorities were

examined to prove that these letters were received by them and the reputation of the petitioner was lowered down in the eyes of those authorities.

Even no person from public has been examined to prove that the reputation of the petitioner has been lowered down upon in their eyes because of

some letter (Ex. P1) written by the respondent. Only one person, namely, Rajesh Sachdeva, the editor of newspaper was examined but he also did

not produce any letter given to him. He simply stated that the letter was destroyed after publication.

The petitioner was required to prove by leading convincing and cogent evidence that the news item was published on the basis of letter issued

by the respondent. The editor of local newspaper was not made party to the case. The judgment of the acquittal by the Appellate Court is based

on reasoning that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt which is the basic requirement under law. The accused cannot

be convicted only on the basis of news item which could not be proved as neither any evidence was on record that the letter was written by

respondent nor that the same was published at the instance of the respondents. Keeping in view the limited scope against the judgment of acquittal,

no legal infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner.

It has been held in various judgments of SC that in case two reasonable and possible views are there and out of two, one leads to acquittal and

other to conviction, the High Court must decide in favour of the accused. It is also held in various judgments that order of acquittal should not

lightly be interfered with in case the court believes that there is some evidence is there which is pointing towards the accused. Although it is a well

settled law that in case of appeal against acquittal, the High Court ordinarily does not interfere with the conclusion drawn by the trial Court below

unless there is some evidence on record which is otherwise and the trial Court has erred in reaching the conclusion of convicting the accused.

However, the appellate Court has given specific findings while reversing the judgment of trial Court and ultimately the accused was acquitted of the

charges. In the present case, a detailed and a well reasoned findings have been given by the Appellate Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I

do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the application is

dismissed.