Santosh vs Sunehara Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7886 P&H

244   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-31516-2019 in/and
                                          CRM-A-2295-2019
                                          Date of Decision: 27th July, 2022
Santosh
                                                                  ... Applicant

                           Versus

Sunehara Singh
                                                                ... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present :    Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant.

                                  ***

AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral)

CRM-31516-2019

This application is filed for condonation of delay of three days

in filling the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed.

CRM-A-2295-2019

1. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal against

judgment of acquittal in Complaint No. 11 of 2017, under Sections 323,

427, 448, 500 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the Act').

2. Brief facts as per the complainant-Santosh are that on

29th August, 2009 Sunehara Singh (respondent) in collusion with the

opponent faction of the village forcibly entered into the house of the

complainant and tried to demolish the house alleging it to be illegal. On

2nd September, 2009, complainant along with her son-Deepak Prashar went

to the District Development and Panchayat Office, Kurukshetra for

filing a complaint with regard to the incident that took place on

1 of 3

CRM-31516-2019 in/and -2-

CRM-A-2295-2019

29th August, 2009. The District Development and Panchayat Officer (for

short 'the DDPO') went out to receive a mobile call and at that time

Sushma Sharma resident of Katoli was present in the office. In the absence

of the DDPO, the complainant had a quarel with the respondent. It was

alleged that he gave a slap on the face and breast of the complainant. To

prove the allegations, complainant and her son deposed. They faultered in

cross-examination as there were contradictions in their statements. They

were ignorant about the location of DDPO office, their presence in the

DDPO office in itself was doubted. The alleged eye-witness Sushma

Sharma was not examined by complaint. The story putforth was found to

be doubtful and respondent was acquitted.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that trial court erred

in acquitting the respondent. The complainant and her son in examination-

in-chief supported the allegations.

4. The cross-examination of the witness is in time tested manner.

The complainant and her son were not able to withstand the cross-

examination. Their deposition was not found to be reliable. The alleged

independent witness for reasons best known was not examined. Having

failed to prove the guilt of the hilt, the respondent was acquitted.

5. No case is made out for grant of leave to appeal, as no legal or

factual error, much less perversity has been pointed out in the impugned

judgment. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court is plausible reason.

6. The application is dismissed.

                                      2 of 3

 CRM-31516-2019 in/and                                             -3-
CRM-A-2295-2019

7. Since the main application is dismissed, pending applications

if any, are rendered infructuous.

(AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE th 27 July, 2022 Parveen Sharma Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3