Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 27 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218 CRM-A-649-MA-2016
Reserved on:05.09.2022
Date of Decision: 27.09, 2022
Lakhwinder Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate
for the applicant.
Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 4.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J.
The instant application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.,
arises out of judgement dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, whereby, the respondents
were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 326, 342, 323
and 506 IPC by holding that the complainant had failed to prove the
case against the accused and he had created a false complaint due to
enmity with the accused and had wasted the public time of the Court
also. Challenging the said verdict of acquittal the
applicant/complainant has filed the instant application before this
Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
have carefully perused the trial Court records and we concur with the
1 of 7
findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the
respondents/accused.
The complaint was filed in the instant case on 07.08.2010
by complainant Lakhwinder Singh by alleging that he was resident of
village Fattupur and the respondents belonged to his village only. The
complainant alongwith other family members had purchased the land
from the co-sharers of the respondents/accused and due to said
reason, the respondents were inimical towards the complainant. At
about 09.00 a.m., on 20.07.2010, when the complainant was going
towards his fields, Jagir Singh and Surjit Singh, respondents No. 2
and 4, respectively, came there armed with 'dangs' whereas, Narinder
Singh respondent No. 3 came there armed with 'dattar' and waylaid
the complainant. Jagir Singh raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson for
purchasing the property from the co-owner in the name of his wife
and gave a blow with 'dang' on the left hand of the complainant.
Narinder Singh gave two blows with 'dattar' on the left arm of the
complainant. When the complainant raised a hue and cry to save him,
Joginder Singh and Jaswinder Singh came from the backside and
witnessed the occurrence and saved the complainant from the clutches
of the respondents/accused.
The occurrence in the instant case had taken place at
09.00 a.m. on 20.07.2010, whereas from the perusal of the records, it
is evident that the complainant/appellant made statement Ex.D1 to the
police on 24.07.2010 after a delay of four days. Similarly, the instant
2 of 7
complaint was filed before the trial Court by the complainant on
07.08.2010 after a period of about 18 days. Till the conclusion of the
trial, the applicant/complainant could not offer any explanation with
regard to delay in reporting the matter to the police or to the Court.
Even if the arguments by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
police was hesitating in taking action against the accused under
political influence, is admitted to be correct, still the
applicant/complainant had the opportunity to lodge the criminal
complaint before the Court and the delay itself is fatal to the case of
the prosecution.
Still further, it is also on record that the
applicant/complainant had reported the matter to the police by making
a complaint Ex.D1. The matter was investigated by the police and
after joining him as well as the other party in the investigation, it was
found that the injuries suffered by the applicant/complainant were
self-inflicted and the version put-forth by the complainant was found
to be false and unbelievable. As a consequence thereof, a calendra
under Section 182 IPC was registered against the present
applicant/complainant and the copy of the calendra was placed on the
file as Mark D1. The said calendra against the applicant is stated to be
pending in the Court. Consequently, the version of the
applicant/complainant was found to be false after a detailed
investigation by the police and his case was found to be doubtful.
3 of 7
The learned trial Court has discussed the testimony of
CW3 Dr. Kishan Chand and held a detailed discussion on the medical
evidence in the impugned judgment. In fact, it is apparent from the
testimony of CW3 Dr. Kishan Chand, who prepared the MLR of the
applicant/injured, that apart from cut of injury No. 1, no other injury
was noticed. He had suggested to get the forensic opinion, but he had
not received any such report. Even we agree with the contentions
raised by the learned defence counsel before the learned trial Court
that this double bone cut on the wrist of the complainant, i.e.,
non-vital part is caused due to self-infliction and the possibility of
self-infliction of the injury in the instant case cannot be ruled out.
This also finds support from the testimony of CW3 Dr. Kishan Chand,
who deposed that he found more probability of injuries having been
inflicted with the friendly hands and due to this reason, he had raised
suspicion and sought the report from the forensic experts. Still further,
even the X-ray films had not been produced on the record by the
applicant/complainant which was the best and the primary evidence to
record a finding as to whether there was any fracture in respect of the
injury of the complainant or not. Further, the trial Court correctly
found that there were contradictions between initial version Ex.D1
and the evidence led by the applicant at a later stage. In his initial
version, the applicant/complainant stated that he was caused injury
only with one blow of 'dattar' and there was no reference of the
second blow, whereas in the complaint he alleged that Narinder Singh
4 of 7
gave two 'dattar' blows, which hit on the left armed of the applicant.
We have also perused the testimonies of various prosecution
witnesses and found the same to be unreliable and even the
complainant could not withstand the test of cross-examination.
Consequently, we find no reasons to deviate from the detailed
findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Apparently, the trial
Court has recorded good reasons for recording the verdict of acquittal
and the same is liable to be affirmed by this Court.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P., 2008(10) SCC 450 as follows:-
"71. In Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka
(2007) 4 SCC 415, this Court held:
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) 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.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not 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
5 of 7
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review
the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) 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.
(5) 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."
72. The following principles emerge from the cases
above:
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in
appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of
reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can
reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review
the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts
and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was
before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters
the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be
given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true
6 of 7
when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough
for the High Court to take a different view of the
evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling
reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.
Keeping in view the substratum of the prosecution case
and the material available on record we are of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
Resultantly, we affirm and uphold the impugned
judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Batala. The application is without any merit and, therefore,
dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are
disposed off, accordingly.
The trial Court record be sent back forthwith.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
27.09, 2022 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
