Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meera vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 November, 2022
CRM-A-220- MA-2017(O&M) -1-
210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-220- MA-2017(O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.11.2022
MEERA ......... Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Ms. Vaishali Singla Legal Aid Counsel
for the petitioner.
Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
CRM-4262-2017
Application is for condonation of delay of 138 days in filing the
appeal.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the
application is allowed and delay is condoned.
CRM stands disposed of.
CRM-A-220- MA-2017
1. The appellant through instant appeal is seeking setting aside
of judgment dated 14.07.2016 whereby JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
has dismissed complaint of the present appellant.
2. Shorn of unnecessary, the material facts emerging from
record are that as per appellant on 13.09.20211 at 8:30 AM respondents
No.2 and 5 entered into the residential house of the appellant in drunken
condition and tried to use the stairs as they intended to commit theft of
electricity. When the appellant attempted to stop them from using their
staircase, they entered into her room and picked up a bag containing
1 of 6
CRM-A-220- MA-2017(O&M) -2-
Rs.10,000/-, silver ornaments of 10 tolas and one gold ring, which was
lying in the room of the appellant. The respondents No.2 and 5 called
their accomplish and respondents No.3, 4 and 6 entered into their house
while armed with dandas, knife and lathi. They caught hold the appellant
from her hair and started inflicting blows with their respective weapons.
The respondents No. 2 and 4 hit her on her mouth, due to which her two
teeth were broken. The respondent No.3 inflicted a knife blow on her.
The respondent No.5 gave lathi blow and dragged out her in the street.
She started crying and habitants of the locality saved her from the
clutches of respondents.
3. The appellant with above averments, filed a complaint
under Sections 294, 323, 324, 452, 506 and 120-B IPC which came up
for consideration before learned JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The
appellant in support of her contention examined 4 witnesses i.e. CW-1 to
CW-4. She further led documentary evidence.
4. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 323, 324,
452, 506 and 34 of IPC. The respondents did not plead guilty and
claimed the trial. The statement of accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C wherein they pleaded false implication and claimed
innocence. The respondents in support their defence tendered documents
as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-12.
5. The Trial Court after scrutinizing the record and considering
the arguments of both sides came to a conclusion that complainant has
failed to prove guilt of the accused, accordingly, all the respondents were
acquitted from all the charges against them.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that witness i.e.
2 of 6
CRM-A-220- MA-2017(O&M) -3-
CW- Rajpal, who was present at the time of alleged incident, thus, Trial
Court has wrongly disbelieved his deposition. She further submitted that
the alleged injuries suffered by the complainant stood corroborated by
MLR and Trial Court has wrongly ignored averment of the complainant.
7. Learned Trial Court has recorded separate finding qua
separate charge. It has been held that in the absence of any external or
internal injuries on the lips, in the oral cavity, on the lower jaw and on
the upper jaw, the story of complainant qua dislocation of two incisor
teeth of the lower jaw is not believable. The complainant is 45 years old,
thus, possibility of mobility of incisor due to aging is also there. It is
impossible to believe that when force of such intensity was used in
inflicting injury with the brickbat which caused dislocation of the front
teeth in the lower jaw, no injury, whatsoever was occurred inside the oral
cavity, the lips and the lower jaw.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments while
dealing with scope and powers of the appellate court in dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal has elucidated:
(i) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion,
both on questions of fact and of law.
(iii) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and
compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong
circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not
3 of 6
CRM-A-220- MA-2017(O&M) -4-
intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes
of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the
evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that
in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
9. The appellant is seeking special leave to appeal against
judgment and order whereby trial court has acquitted the respondent. It is
settled law that granting of special leave to appeal against acquittal is a
discretionary power. However, such power has to be exercised
judiciously and the Courts are not permitted to exercise the same at
whims or fancies and arbitrarily. Arbitrariness has always been held
anathema to exercise of any power.
10. Allegation against the respondents was of commission of
cognizable offence, however, nothing is on record disclosing the reason
for the appellant to opt to file complaint. If FIR was not registered by
4 of 6
CRM-A-220- MA-2017(O&M) -5-
police, the complainant was free to seek recourse of Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. Had matter been investigated by police, actual facts would have
come on record especially qua allegation of trespass and snatching of bag
containing cash, silver and gold articles. Report called by trial court
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. indicated that incident as alleged by
complainant did not take place.
The deposition of alleged eye witnesses is not believable
because in his pre-charge he claimed himself neighbour of the
complainant whereas in cross examination accepted that he is not staying
in the vicinity of the complainant. In cross examination, he denied the
fact of snatching of bag in his presence and claimed that it was told to
him by complainant. He changed his stand qua reason of his presence at
the spot. The contradictions in the pre-charge and post charge deposition
of the witness are writ large.
The stand of the complainant in her complainant,
preliminary evidence and pre-charge evidence was contradictory. There
were contradictions qua injuries caused by Narinder; presence of her
husband, Vicky and eye witness-Rajpal at the time of alleged incident
and at that point of time role played by them; injury caused by Sunita on
the arm of the complainant with a knife; state of mind of the complainant
after alleged incident. The trial court on account of various reasons has
found that even allegation of complainant that her two incisor teeth
dislocated was false.
11. In view of the above narrated facts, having regard to the
findings recorded by trial court including accepted legal position, this
Court is of the considered opinion that in the case at hand there is no
5 of 6
CRM-A-220- MA-2017(O&M) -6-
infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has
acquitted the respondent. Accordingly, this Court fully agrees with the
finding recorded by trial Court. The impugned judgment and order being
speaking, based upon correct appreciation of facts, applicable law &
judicial precedents and well-reasoned needs no interference of this
Court. Therefore, request of the applicant seeking permission special
leave to appeal is hereby rejected. In the result, application seeking
special leave to appeal and consequently, appeal is dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
23.11.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
