Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veeru Singh vs Darshan Lal And Ors on 17 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055443
2023:PHHC:055443
CRM-A-494 of 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-494 of 2019
Date of decision:-17.04.2023.
Veeru Singh
.....Applicant
Versus
Darshan Lal and others
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Fatehjeet Singh, Advocate
for the applicant.
*****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. Prayer in this application is for the grant of leave to file appeal against
the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fazilka, vide which the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges framed
against them.
2. The facts, briefly put, are that the applicant-complainant filed a
complaint alleging that 3-4 months prior to its filing, he had sought the record of
NAREGA by way of an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for
short the RTI Act) as Darshan Lal, Sarpanch had got a Scheduled Caste Certificate
prepared instead of getting a Backward Class Certificate prepared. On account of
this, Darshan Lal had been nurturing a grudge against him. On 11.06.2016 at about
10.00 P.M., while the complainant and his family members were sleeping, Darshan
Lal, Sarpanch along with respondent-accused Nos.2 to 6 came there. He exhorted
the other persons to catch hold of the applicant-complainant and to teach him a
lesson for seeking information through the RTI Act. Respondent-accused Nos.2 to
6 then entered the house of the applicant-complainant and assaulted him. A rope
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055443
2023:PHHC:055443
was put round his neck and he was dragged with an intention to kill him. Fist and
kick blows were also given. When his wife Harbans Kaur intervened and tried to
save him, she was also beaten up. On hearing their cries, other family members
and neighbours came to the spot upon which the accused fled from there. The
complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Fazilka. It was further alleged that
statement of the complainant was recorded by one ASI Harkesh Kumar, Incharge
Police Post Ladhuka but no FIR was registered. As a result of the same, the
complaint had to be filed.
3. Pre-summoning evidence was led, on the basis of which only
respondent-accused Nos.1 to 3 were summoned for offences punishable under
Section 451, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and complaint qua remaining
accused was dismissed.
4. Charges were framed and after charge evidence was led, in which six
witnesses were examined. After charge evidence was closed and statement of
accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. After considering the matter, the trial Court dismissed the complaint
as a result of which the present application has been filed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-complainant and have
perused the paper book.
7. Learned counsel has submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing
the complaint despite cogent evidence having been led by the complainant.
Reference has been made to the judgment and discussion in the judgment with
regard to the evidence led by the complainant. It has been argued that the trial
Court dismissed the complaint without examining the matter from the correct
perspective.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055443
2023:PHHC:055443
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
applicant-complainant, but find the same to be devoid of merit. As per the
complaint, the incident took place on 11.06.2016 at about 10.00 P.M. However, the
applicant-complainant was admitted in hospital on the next day about 10.30 A.M.,
and no intimation was given nor any complaint was submitted to the local police.
No explanation for the same was given. The police received information only from
the hospital on 12.06.2016. It is quite unnatural that a person who, along with his
wife had been assaulted by a group of persons in the dead of the night could not
even inform the police about the incident. The matter does not rest here. Even after
the police having gone to the hospital on 12.06.2016, no statement was given by
the applicant-complainant and for the first time, he gave his statement on
15.06.2016. This delay of three days also went unexplained. This period definitely
gave ample time to the applicant-complainant to think about the whole issue and
accordingly give a statement. Even the injuries suffered by the applicant-
complainant did not match his version. The doctor who appeared as CW-6 stated
that had a person been dragged with a rope around his neck, there would have
been marks on the sides of the neck as well and there would not be a mark only on
the front of the neck as was in the case of the applicant-complainant. The other
witnesses including the wife of the applicant-complainant also gave inconsistent
statements. The trial Court therefore, rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the
respondents-accused.
9. I have not found any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned
trial Court. Even otherwise, it is settled law that Appellate Courts should be very
slow in interfering in judgments of acquittal and judgments of acquittal should be
reversed only if they suffer from perversity. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Saran Singh
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055443
2023:PHHC:055443
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016(2) RCR (Criminal) 319, State of Rajasthan
Vs. Madan alias Madaniya, 2019 Crl.L.R.(S.C.) 09 and Rabindra Kumar Pal
alias Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, 2011(2) SCC 490.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find
any merit in the present application for the grant of leave to appeal and the same
is, therefore, dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
th
April 17 , 2023 JUDGE
Rekha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055443
4 of 4
