Baljit Singh vs Harish Chander Chopra And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 10711 P&H

      CRM-A-1208-2019                                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-A-1208-2019
                                         Reserved on: 05.09.2022
                                         Pronounced on:08.09.2022
Baljit Singh

                                                                   ...Applicant(s)
                                     Versus
Harish Chander Chopra and others
                                                                  ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT

Present:       Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate,
               for the complainant-applicant.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

The instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure arise out of the judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, whereby the

respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges in a complaint bearing

No.14/2009 under Sections 218, 219, 363, 364, 341, 365, 367, 506, 511 and

120-B IPC. The learned trial Court noticed number of discrepancies in the

version of the complainant, brought to the fore by the defence, creating

serious doubts over the version of the complainant; extended the benefit of

doubt and acquitted the respondents of the charges against them. Feeling

aggrieved, the complainant moved the present application with a prayer to

grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts, which are

necessary for disposal of the matter, are that a criminal complaint under

Sections 218, 219, 363, 364, 341, 365, 367, 506, 511 and 120-B IPC was filed

by Baljit Singh-complainant against the respondents in the Court of learned

1 of 12

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur with the broad allegations that he had

filed contempt proceedings against accused Harish Chander Chopra

(respondent No.1 herein) and Gursharan Singh Sandhu in the Court of

learned District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was fixed for hearing

on 12.06.2009. At about 11.30 AM, when the complainant came out of the

court of learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, Sandip Kumar, SHO, Police

Station, Model Town, Hoshiarpur (respondent No.2 herein), ASI Chanan

Singh (respondent No.3 herein) and Harish Chander Chopra (respondent

No.1 herein) and some other police personnel, in a pre-planned manner,

encircled the complainant-Baljit Singh, in order to abduct him. A threat was

extended by SHO Sandip Kumar-respondent No.2 that they would challan

him under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and forcibly abducted the

complainant/appellant by holding his wrist and dragged him to the official

jeep with the help of other police personnel and Harish Chander, respondent

No.1. The accused forcibly tried to put him in the official vehicle, i.e.

Tempo Trax. On this, the complainant raised alarm, whereupon father of

the complainant and several other persons, who were present in the Court

complex, gathered there and saved the complainant from the clutches of the

accused. The accused hurled abuses and threatened the complainant to

withdraw all the cases against them, otherwise they would eliminate and he

would be involved in a false case under the NDPS Act or any other criminal

case, where he will be sent to jail and will not be able to get bail. It was

further alleged that the said occurrence was witnessed by father of

complainant and several other persons.

The applicant-complainant immediately moved an application

(Ex.CW1/B) before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and

2 of 12

narrated the occurrence to him. Sandip Kumar, SHO (respondent No.2)

with the connivance of other accused got registered a false and frivolous

complaint on 12.06.2009 and also filed a wrong enquiry report against the

complainant in order to save themselves. Still further, accused Sandip

Kumar, SHO and ASI Chanan Singh had misused their official position by

coming to Sessions Court Complex, which was not situated within their

territorial jurisdiction. A complaint was presented before the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 05.09.2009, i.e. after about 03 months

of the occurrence.

Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to refer to the

complaint dated 12.06.2009 (Ex.CW1/B), which is stated to have been made

by the complainant to the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur immediately

after the occurrence on 12.06.2009. The applicant-complainant has

reproduced the same in para 3 of his application and for ready reference, the

same is being reproduced below:-

"To The Hon'ble Session Judge, Hoshiarpur.

Sub: With regard to giving threats and involving me in false case today i.e. 12.06.2009 at 11.30 A.M. by Retired D.S.P. Harish Chander and Inspector (S.I.) Sandip Singh, A.S.I. Chanan Singh.

Sir, I Baljit Singh son of Shangara Singh am resident of Mohalla Guru Nanak Nagar, Hoshiarpur. Today, I came to the Hon'ble Sessions Court for attending my complaint case filed by me against Gursharan Singh and Harish Chander retired D.S.P. Whereas when I went outside of your court about 3-4 karams then the aforesaid police personnels who are Inspector (S.I.) Sandip Singh, A.S.I. Chanan Singh and Retired D.S.P.

3 of 12

Harish Chander have gharowed me and told me that today you will be challaned under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and further asked me to sit in the vehicle and threatened me that if the present contempt is not withdrawn then you will have to face worse results. In this regard I have also informed you at that very moment. At the time of incident my father was also present with me.

My life and property may kindly be protected because I have filed the present contempt against the senior police officers, who are putting pressure upon me to withdraw the present contempt and I have strong apprehension of danger of my life and property.

Kindly protect my life and property and action be taken against the accused. I shall be highly thankful to you. I may kindly be protected from the police department and near Harish Chander Commandant also they have gharowed me within the area of the court.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-Baljit Singh son of Shri Shangara Singh, resident of Mohalla Guru Nanak Nagar, House No.262, The and District Hoshiarpur Dated 12/06/2009."

The trial was held before the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur and both the parties have led their

respective evidence before it. Ultimately, the learned trial Court held that

the complainant could not establish that an attempt for abduction under a

criminal conspiracy was made by the accused. It is held that upon failure of

the complainant to establish the substantive offences, mere allegations of

criminal intimidation cannot be assumed ipso facto and in isolation,

especially when the evidence of the complainant has been rendered

doubtful. The complainant is required to prove the offences beyond shadow

of reasonable doubt that the accused are indeed guilty of having committed

4 of 12

the offences for which they have been charged with. The learned trial Court

took notice of number of discrepancies appearing in the testimonies of

various witnesses of the prosecution, which cast a cloud of suspicion over

the version of the complainant and while extending the benefit of doubt, the

respondent/accused were ordered to be acquitted.

Assailing the findings of the acquittal recorded by the learned

trial Court, the complainant preferred the instant appeal coupled with an

application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to

appeal before this Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant-

applicant at length and with his able assistance have perused the evidence

available on record.

In criminal law, the first and prompt version of the complainant

is always accorded supremacy. The delayed version always needs to be

viewed with caution and circumspection as the same might be susceptible to

improvements, afterthoughts and embellishments. In the instant case, the

first version of the complainant was recorded in the shape of his complaint

(Ex.CW1/B), which was moved by him to the learned Sessions Judge,

Hoshiarpur. Even if the said version is perused, it is at the most referring to

a request to the complainant to sit in the official vehicle, whereas the

version put forth in the instant complaint dated 05.09.2009, i.e. almost three

months of the occurrence, the allegations levelled by the complainant are in

a stark contrast. The applicant-complainant not only self contradicted while

deposing before the court, but the complaint in question is apparently an

exaggerated version. The complainant had put on record Ex.CW1/B,

which was initially moved to the learned Sessions Judge immediately after

5 of 12

the occurrence, in which he alleged that he had covered 3-4 Karam of

distance after attending the court of learned Sessions Judge, he was

encircled by the accused and was told that he would be challaned under

Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and further asked him to sit in the vehicle and

threatened him that in case the contempt proceedings were not withdrawn,

he would have to face dire consequences. It was also alleged in the

complaint (Ex.CW1/B) that he had informed the learned Sessions Judge at

that very moment and at the time of incident his father was also present.

Whereas a cumulative reading of the complaint (Ex.CW1/B)

and the complaint in question would establish that the complainant left no

stone unturned in improving the version, to ensure the implication of the

respondents in a criminal case. The applicant-complainant alleged in the

complaint that at about 11.30 AM on 12.06.2009, when he came out from

the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, the respondents and other

police personnel, encircled him in a pre-planned manner, in order to abduct

him and forcibly tried to put the applicant into official vehicle, i.e. Tempo

Trax. Sandip Kumar, SHO-respondent No.2 told the applicant that they

would challan him under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. The appellant was held

by his wrist and dragged him to the official jeep with the help of other

police personnel and Harish Chander, in order to abduct him. When the

complainant raised the alarm, the father of the appellant and the persons

present in the Court Complex tried to save him from the clutches of the

accused. A threat was extended by the accused that they would eliminate

the applicant-complainant and would also involve him in a false case under

the NDPS Act or any other criminal case and that they would send the

applicant into jail and he would not be able to get the bail. Apart from this,

6 of 12

several other serious allegations were levelled in the complaint by the

applicant, which were completely missing in the first version of the

complainant.

Even the allegations levelled by the complainant are highly

unnatural and unbelievable. It has been alleged that the accused tried to

abduct the complainant from a place which was hardly 24 feet away from

the Sessions Court. The complainant as well as the accused had served in

the Police Department and were well acquainted with the laws and the

judicial proceedings. The place of occurrence is generally not of much

relevance, however, in the instant case, place of occurrence is also a

material fact for adjudication of the matter. It is unbelievable that the

accused had the intention to abduct the complainant and they chose the

place of abduction as the premises of District Court and that too right

outside the office/court room of the District & Sessions Judge. It is highly

unbelievable that the police officials/ex-police officials wanted to carry out

such a serious offence of abduction and they would choose the place of

occurrence to be near the Sessions Court. Even the learned trial Court has

rightly pointed out that in case the policemen in uniform had in fact hatched

a conspiracy to abduct the applicant-complainant and had made an

unsuccessful attempt, then under normal circumstances, they would have

immediately fled the place of occurrence after such failure. However, in the

instant case, it is the admitted case of the complainant himself that the

accused themselves voluntarily accompanied the complainant to the office

of learned District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in order to rebut the

allegations of the complainant then and there.

Still further, the evidence clearly suggests that the accused had

7 of 12

got recorded a DDR entry prior to leaving for Sessions Court for taking

action in the matter, which was reported to them. Moreover, the defence

had examined Opinderjit Singh Ghuman as DW-1, the then SP

(Headquarters), who had specifically directed Sandip Kumar, SHO-

respondentNo.2 to visit the District Courts, where some matter was reported

and the said fact clearly disapproves the allegations of the complainant that

Sandip Kumar, SHO and other police personnel were acting at the dictates

of some other persons and had hatched a conspiracy to abduct and

intimidate him into withdrawing the proceedings initiated by him.

In the complaint in question as well as in his initial version

Ex.CW1/B, the applicant-complainant alleged that while he was being

abducted by the accused, his father was also present with him, who along

with other accused had rescued the applicant/complainant from the clutches

of the accused/respondents. His father was the most material witness to

support his claim, but surprisingly the complainant chose not to examine his

father as a witness. Rather the complainant examined Jarnail Singh as

CW-3, a retired DSP, as an eye witness. Again it is surprising to note that

Jarnail Singh, CW-3, was never cited as a witness by the complainant in his

initial version or subsequent complaint. Even otherwise, the version of

Jarnail Singh, CW-3, was highly unbelievable and separate findings are

being recorded in the judgment in this regard.

Even from a perusal of testimony of CW-6-Baljit Singh,

applicant, it is apparent that he is not a witness, worthy of any credence. He

had improved his version, while deposing as CW-6 before the trial court

and was duly confronted with the initial version and other exhibits in that

regard. As observed above, he made a deposition, which was contrary to

8 of 12

his initial complaint, submitted by him to the learned Sessions Judge,

Hoshiarpur. Apart from that, it appears that the complaint in question was

filed by the applicant/complainant with some oblique motive and is aimed

at polluting the process of justice. His testimony before the court clearly

spells out that he is a chronic litigant. He admitted in his cross-examination

that he had filed a complaint case titled as 'Baljit Singh Vs Vijay Pal',

which is pending adjudication in the Court of Ms. Rubina Joshan, JMIC,

Hoshiarpur. Again, this case is against a Police Officer. He admitted that he

is a complainant in two criminal cases titled as 'Baljit Singh Vs. Gursharan

Singh Sandhu' and 'Baljit Singh Vs. Harsih Chander Chopra and others'.

However, both the complaint cases had now been dismissed. He had filed a

revision petition in the court of learned Sessions Judge. Still further, he

admitted in his testimony that the police had conducted an enquiry on the

allegations, as levelled by him in this complaint and a departmental enquiry

was also conducted. He had joined both the enquiries and all the allegations

were found to be false in the departmental enquiry. He further admitted that

he had filed other complaints against Harish Chander and other officials of

the Police Department, under whom he was working at Jahan Khelan. Even

he admitted that the name of CW-3 Jarnail Singh, DSP had not been

mentioned as a witness by him in the application moved to learned District

& Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. He further admitted that name of CW-3

Jarnail Singh, DSP, was not mentioned as a witness in the

complaint/application moved by him to the higher police authorities.

Consequently, we agree with the findings recorded by the

learned trial Court in this regard and no reliance can be placed on the

testimony of CW-6-Baljit Singh (applicant).

9 of 12

Similarly, at a later stage, the complainant-applicant introduced

CW-3 Jarnail singh, a retired DSP, as an alleged eye witness to the

occurrence. The said witness admitted in his cross-examination that the

appellant had served with him in Jahan Kehlan in the year 2006-07. He

admitted that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of 8/10 yards in

the first instance, however, he did not go to rescue Baljit Singh, applicant.

He further admitted that he did not inform any superior officer with regard

to the occurrence and also did not deem it appropriate to inform any other

authority. He did not inform the police or anyone about the occurrence.

Being a Police Officer, he admitted that the nature of alleged offence

mentioned by him in his testimony was such that immediate action was

required and information was to be given to the Police without any delay,

but he did not deem it appropriate to inform anyone. He admitted the

suggestion that he should inform to the officials of Police Department, as he

retired DSP from the Punjab Police. From a perusal of his testimony, it is

evident that the said witness had not at all witnessed the occurrence and his

testimony is liable to be discarded.

Learned counsel for the applicant-complainant submitted that

Sandip Kumar, SHO-respondent No.2, was admittedly the then Station

House Officer of Police Station, Model Town, Hoshiarpur. However, the

area of Sessions Court Complex is stately fall within the jurisdiction of

Police Station City Hoshiarpur. Consequently, Sandip Kumar, SHO acted

in gross violation of law and had gone beyond his jurisdiction limits in

order to commit the offences, as alleged by the complainant. However, the

said argument has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court by holding

that the defence had examined DW-1 Opinderjit Singh Ghuman, the then

10 of 12

Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Hoshiarpur, who proved to have

deputed Sandip Kumar, SHO on the date of occurrence. He admitted that

he had sought the availability of SHO, Police Station, City Hoshiarpur,

within whose jurisdiction the area of Sessions Court Complex fall at the

relevant time. But since the SHO Police Station, City Hoshiarpur was on

leave, he deputed Sandip Kumar, SHO-respondent No.2 to take stock of the

situation and to act as per law. Consequently, Sandip Kumar, SHO-

respondent No.2 reached at the place of occurrence, where the complainant

was allegedly having some hot exchanges with Harish Chander Chopra.

We are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court

had noticed serious infirmities in the prosecution version and the learned

trial Court was correctly left with no choice but to give benefit of doubt to

the respondents/accused, according to settled principles of criminal

jurisprudence. The learned trial Court rightly recorded that the material

witnesses of the prosecution had improved their versions and the same had

to be discarded.

On careful perusal of the entire evidence available on record

and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-complainant,

we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment of acquittal

rendered by the learned trial Court is liable to be confirmed. Moreover, the

learned trial Court had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the

witnesses, who had given the evidence, therefore, the Appellate Court

should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the leaned trial Court. An

acquittal by the learned trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is

totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

11 of 12

case noted above, the present application for grant of leave to appeal is

without any merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed.

Case property, if any, be disposed off as per law after expiry of

period of limitation. The trial Court record be sent back.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, is disposed of

accordingly.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR)                                      (N.S. SHEKHAWAT)
     JUDGE                                                     JUDGE

08.09.2022
mks
                     Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
                     Whether Reportable:               YES / NO




                                       12 of 12