Om Parkash vs Gurpreet Singh

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this application is for grant of special leave to appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Om Parkash, had filed a complaint against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, alleging that he was Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, village Badsui, and his wife Sinder Devi was the Sarpanch at the time of filing of the complaint. The respondents/accused and their family members got executed the sale deed of land measuring 110 acres which was reserved for grazing the cattle. In order to claim the ownership of the said land in favour of Gram Panchayat, civil suit titled as Magar Singh vs. Zile Singh etc. u/s 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act was pending before the Collector, Kaithal, which was being pursued by the complainant and his wife. On that account, the respondent/accused were upset and were pressurizing the applicant/complainant not to pursue the case in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Since the applicant/complainant did not agree to the proposal made by the respondents/accused, therefore, they were nourishing a grudge against the applicant/complainant and his family members. It was further alleged that the applicant/complainant was witness against the respondents/accused in a case u/s 302, IPC, therefore, the respondents/accused had adopted revengeful attitude towards him (applicant).

On 24.10.2007, when the applicant/complainant Om Parkash along with his wife Sinder Devi was proceeding towards Ambala to attend the court case and had reached near the Primary School of the village, then the respondents/accused in conspiracy with each other emerged there. The respondent/accused Gurpreet Singh was armed with bhala, Jagroop and Jagpal were armed with gandasi while Harbans Kaur and Ranbir Kaur were carrying sticks. On seeing the applicant/complainant Om Parkash and his wife Sinder Devi, Parson Kumar exhorted that the applicant and his wife be taught a lesson for pursuing the case against them and thereafter all the respondents/accused caused injuries to them with their respective weapons. On hearing the noise raised by the applicant/complainant and his wife Sinder Kaur, Amit Kumar and Mahinder reached at the place of occurrence and they tried to rescue the complainant side from the respondents/accused which further infuriated them (respondents) and Amit Kumar and Mahinder were also caused injuries. During the scuffle, the respondents/accused called them (applicant and his wife) by bad names. The villagers assembled at the spot and in order to save the applicant/complainant and his wife, caused injuries to the respondents/accused and thereafter, the respondents/accused fled from the spot along with their respective weapons.

Applicant-Om Parkash, Sinder Devi and Mahinder were medico-legally examined and the police was also informed with regard to the incident but the police colluded with the respondents/accused and registered a baseless FIR against the applicant side.

After leading the preliminary evidence, the learned trial court vide order dated 21.08.2012 proposed to summon the respondents/accused to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC.

After appearance of the respondents/accused, the applicant/complainant examined himself as CW-1 and also examined Dr. Sanjeev Goyal as CW-2 and thereafter, the pre-charge evidence was closed. The charges were framed and thereafter, the complainant was directed to lead his entire evidence and as such, he examined Ram Chander as CW-1, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar as CW-2, Joginder as CW-3, Om Parkash as CW-4, Amit Kumar as CW-5, Dr. Suresh Kumar Saini as CW-6, Sinder Devi as CW-7 and Mahinder as CW-8. After completion of the evidence of the applicant/complainant, the statements of the respondents/accused in terms of Section 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded in which they denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded false implication.

In defence, the respondents/accused tendered the report u/s 173, Cr. P.C. and closed their defence evidence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents/accused on the following grounds:-

i) the complaint was filed as a counter blast to FIR No. 148 dated 25.10.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, registered at Police Station, Cheeka, District Kaithal;

ii) there was delay of 90 days in filing the complaint;

iii) it was a case of version and cross-version;

iv) 15 injuries alleged to have been received by the respondents/accused were not explained by the complainant and his witnesses;

v) the complainant party of the present case had received six injuries while the respondents/accused had received 15 injuries, therefore, the number and nature of injuries revealed that the complainant side was aggressor;

vi) immediately after the occurrence the matter was reported to the police by the respondents/accused on the basis of which FIR No. 148 dated 25.10.2007 was registered at Police Station, Cheeka; and

vii) there were severe discrepancies in the depositions of the complainant witnesses.

Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that there was a strong motive on the part of the accused/respondents to cause injuries to Om Parkash his wife Sinder Devi, and Mahinder etc and that the respondents/accused had got possession of 110 acres of the land of the village and the applicant and his wife being the Ex-Sarpanch and Sarpanch of the village were pursuing the case to get back the said land in favour of the Gram Panchayat and as such, the respondents/accused had caused injuries to the applicant/complainant and his wife.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and with his able assistance gone through the material available on record.

The motive howsoever may be grave cannot take place of the proof. It can be considered to be one of the circumstances for holding the accused guilty but on the sole ground of the motive, a person cannot be convicted and sentenced. Even if the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant is accepted to be true that the respondents/accused had a motive to cause injuries to the complainant, but this circumstance by itself would not lead this Court to hold them guilty for the offences for which they were charged. The reasons recorded by the learned trial court with regard to delay of 90 days in filing the complaint; non-explanation of the 15 injuries on the person of the respondent/accused; and the fact that contradictions pointed out in the depositions of the complainant''s witnesses were correctly appreciated by the learned trial court for recording the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused do not permit this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal. It is the settled law by now that even if out of two views one is in favour of complainant/petitioner then also the findings of acquittal recorded by court below should not be set aside and as such, the present application for grant of special leave to appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.