Manpreet Singh @ Bobby vs Jitender Singh @ Sonu & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 3628 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               RESERVED ON : July 09, 2013
                               DECIDED ON : August 19, 2013

+      CRL.A. 1166/2011

       MANPREET SINGH @ BOBBY
                                                       ..... Appellant
                         Through : Mr.Mahesh Verma, Advocate.

                         versus

       JITENDER SINGH @ SONU & ORS
                                                      ..... Respondent
                         Through : Mr.Anil Kumar and Mr.Sunil Singh,
                                  Advocates.

        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Manpreet Singh @ Bobby (the victim) challenges the

correctness of judgment dated 26.07.2011 in Sessions Case No.181/2009

arising out of FIR No.697/2007 registered at Police Station Rajouri

Garden by which the respondents were acquitted of all the charges.

2. Daily Diary (DD) No.40 (Ex.PW8/A) was recorded on

06.09.2007 at about 10.35 P.M. at police post Raghubir Nagar about a

quarrel at RGB-142, Janta Flat, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. The investigation

was assigned to ASI Partap Singh who with Const.Narender Singh went to

the spot and learnt that injured had already been taken to DDU hospital.

The Investigating Officer went there and collected the MLC of the

complainant. He did not lodge complaint due to pain in head. His

statement was recorded on 07.09.2007 at about 07.00 P.M. and the First

Information Report was lodged. Statements of witnesses conversant with

the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet

was filed under Section 308/34 IPC against the respondents in the court.

They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined

11 witnesses. In their 313 statements, the respondents pleaded false

implication. They also examined 8 witnesses in defence. On appreciating

the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial

court by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents of the charge.

Being aggrieved, the complainant/victim has preferred the appeal. It is

relevant to note that the State did not challenge respondents' acquittal.

3. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not

appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The

complainant categorically implicated all the respondents and attributed

specific role to them in causing injuries to him. PW-2 (Satnam Singh

Khalsa), PW-3(Manmohan Singh) and PW-4 (Mukesh) corroborated him

on all material facts. They had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the

respondents. There is no conflict in the ocular and medical evidence. As

per MLC (Ex.PW10/B) injuries were found on the body of the

complainant. Respondent's counsel urged that there are no sound reasons

to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal which is based on fair

appraisal of the evidence.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have

examined the Trial court record. A quarrel had taken place between the

complainant and the respondents over a trivial issue. It appears that in the

quarrel both the parties sustained injuries. The complainant was

medically examined and PW-11 (Dr.Samarjeet Singh) proved the MLC

(Ex.PW10/B). Nature of injuries was simple with blunt object. It further

reveals that respondent No.4 Manpreet Singh @ Monu R/o RGB-142,

Janta Flat, Raghubir Nagar also sustained injuries in the incident. The

Investigating Officer, however, did not opt to initiate any proceedings

against the assailant(s) for the injuries caused to him. Vide MLC

No.21127 on 06.09.2007 Manpreet Singh S/o Satnam Singh was

medically examined on 6.9.2007 itself at DDU hospital. Nature of injuries

are simple with sharp object. The Investigating Officer did not explain as

to why no cross-case was registered against the assailants for the injuries

caused to Manpreet Singh @ Monu. He ( Manpreet Singh @ Monu) has

filed a complaint case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the matter is

pending for consideration before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

The complainant admitted injuries on the body of the Manpreet but

termed those on 'self-inflicted injuries'. The prosecution did not examine

the concerned doctor to ascertain if the injuries found on the body of

respondent No.4-Manpreet Singh @ Monu could be self-inflicted.

Apparently, the prosecution/complainant has failed to explain as to how

and under what circumstances respondent No.4 Manpreet Singh @ Monu

sustained injuries with sharp weapon in the incident.

5. There was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint with the

police by the complainant. When the Investigating Officer went to the

hospital to record the complainant's statement, he did not lodge it. He

made statement on the next day at about 07:00 P.M. in which he gave

graphic detail as to how and under what circumstances, he sustained

injuries. He even alleged that he had lost his mobile, cash and golden

chain. MLC (Ex.PW10/B) reveals that the complainant was conscious

and oriented. There was no reason/excuse for him not to make statement

then and there. It seems that statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was made after due

deliberations and consultations. No weapon of offence was recovered in

the case from the possession of the respondents or at their instance. The

complainant has alleged that Neeta (since expired) was armed with a

Kripan. However, there is no evidence ocular or medical if Neeta caused

any injuries with Kripan on the body of the complainant. Presence of

PW-2 (Satnam Singh Khalsa), PW-3(Manmohan Singh) and PW-4

(Mukesh) appears doubtful as none of them intervened to save the injured.

None of them took the victim to the hospital. They did not corroborate

complainant's version if any cash/mobile was lost/stolen in the incident.

The Trial Court has discarded their version as they were interested

witnesses.

6. Facts and circumstances reveal that it was a quarrel over a

trivial issue in which both the sides participated and sustained injuries. It

was the duty of the Investigating Officer to find out as to who was the

aggressor. Only on the complainant's statement on the next day, the

Investigating Officer opted to lodge First Information Report under

Section 308 IPC against the respondents and for no apparent reasons, no

action was taken against the assailants for the injuries caused to

respondent No.4-Manpreet Singh. There was no sound reason to register

FIR for attempt to commit culpable homicide when a complainant was

discharged on the same day and had not sustained grievous or dangerous

injuries with any deadly weapon on the vital organs.

7. The standards to be applied by the High Court while

considering an appeal against acquittal is one where the prosecution

establishes substantial and compelling reasons, which by and large are

confined to serious or grave mis-appreciation of evidence, wrong

application of law and an approach which would lead to complete

miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the Trial Court listed various

grounds on which it acquitted the respondents/accused. All of them, to my

mind, are reasonable and none of them can be termed as misapplication of

law or wrongful appreciation of the evidence placed before the Court by

the prosecution.

8. Appeal against the acquittal is considered on slightly

different parameters compared to an ordinary appeal preferred to this

Court. When an accused is acquitted of a criminal charge, a right vests in

him to be a free citizen and this Court is cautious in taking away that right.

The presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by

his acquittal after a full trial, which assumes critical importance in our

jurisprudence. If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the

case, then the one favourable to the accused, should be adopted.

9. Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case, I

find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is unmerited and

is consequently dismissed.

10. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE August 19, 2013 sa