Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-363-2020 (O & M)
Date of decision: 27.07.2022
Hardeep Singh ....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. APS Gill, DAG, Punjab.
****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present appeal arises out of the order dated 30.08.2019 of
acquittal of Satnam Singh passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Gurdaspur in a complaint case filed by the appellant.
It is pertinent to notice that the complaint was not only filed
against the said accused but also against his son Amarpreet Singh, who was
declared as a juvenile and proceedings were sent to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Gurdarpur vide order dated 16.03.2019. The proceedings against
Gurmukh Singh abated on account of his death. The acquittal has been
recorded by the trial Court mainly on the ground that it is a counter blast to
the criminal proceedings, which had been instituted against the complainant
by Manjit Singh s/o Satnam Singh, the respondent who had also lodged FIR
No. 144 dated 24.07.2014 regarding the incident dated 21.07.2014 which
took place at 9.45 p.m. It has been noticed by the trial Court that the
appellant-complainant Hardeep Singh, when questioned during cross
1 of 4
CRM-A-363-2020 (O & M) -2-
examination, has shown ignorance regarding the said incident. It has also
been noticed that there is delay as such regarding the incident which is
stated to have happened on the evening of 21.07.2014 and the complaint
was only filed on 14.08.2014 i.e. after a lapse of 22 days. The factum that
CW-2 Jaswinder Kaur, who is the daughter-in-law of the appellant-
complainant, also admitted the fact that an incident had happened whereby
her husband was admitted in hospital, was also noticed and the enmity inter
se the family since on an earlier occasion proceedings under Section
107/150 Cr.P.C. had also been initiated against the accused persons and
they had been discharged by the SDM, Gurdaspur on 29.03.2016 (D-4). It
is in such circumstances, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the
previous history and the litigation inter se is being concealed.
Other factors like that he was conscious and tried to cover up
the fact of delay that he had got unconscious whereas he has signed on the
medico legal report was also kept into account apart from the fact that the
daughter-in-law Jaswinder Kaur and one Balkar Singh were also
accompanying him but strangely they did not receive any injury at the hands
of the opposite party. Resultantly, a finding has been recorded that the said
witness Jaswinder Kaur and Balkar Singh were planted and interested
witnesses being relatives of the complainant. It has also been noticed that
juvenile Amarpreet Singh, whose matter had been referred to the Juvenile
Justice Board, was also acquitted and similar finding has been recorded by
another Presiding Officer that the complaint appears to be a counter blast to
the FIR registered against the complainant and his son on the statement of
Manjit Singh, brother of the juvenile. The evidence as such of Dr. Ranjan
Singh CW-5 in the said case was also taken into consideration that the cut
2 of 4
CRM-A-363-2020 (O & M) -3-
as such which figured on the left tibia of the complainant was a superficial
cut and the possibility of the same being on account of a friendly hand
could not be ruled out. It is in such circumstances the benefit of acquittal
has been granted by taking into account the fact that if two views are
possible on the evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused is
liable to be applied.
We have perused the record and also the judgment of the trial
Court and are of the considered opinion that the findings which have been
recorded are not suffering from any perversity and the evidence has been
discussed in detail of all the witnesses. The reasoning which had been
arrived at cannot be said to be suffering from any perversity which would
warrant interference in the acquittal which has been rightly recorded. More
so, keeping in view the fact that there is a history of litigation inter se the
parties and, therefore, the factum of motive as such to falsely implicate the
respondent herein would be apparent in order to save the complainant-
appellant, who himself was charge sheeted on 19.01.2016 (Ex.D-14), which
was thereafter amended on 23.01.2019 (Ex.D-13) in FIR No. 144 dated
24.07.2014. Thus, a finding which has been recorded that it is a case to
counter the criminal prosecution which had earlier been initiated against the
appellant-complainant cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or
infirmity which would warrant interference. Even otherwise, keeping in
mind that there is a double presumption of innocence, once an order of
acquittal had been recorded, we are of the considered opinion that no case is
made out for interference in the findings of the trial Court.
Accordingly, application under Section 378(4) to grant leave to
appeal is dismissed. We also do not find any reasonable grounds to
3 of 4
CRM-A-363-2020 (O & M) -4-
condone the delay of 111 days which has occurred in fling the application
for grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, the same also stands dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
27.07.2022 (VIKAS SURI)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
