Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Ohri vs Bal Krishan And Ors on 2 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107796
239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1172-MA-2016
Date of Decision : 02.08.2023
Vikram Ohri .....Applicant
Versus
Bal Krishan and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate
for the applicant.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
The complainant seeks leave to appeal under Section 378(4)
Cr.P.C. impugning judgment dated 26th of April, 2016 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur acquitting the respondents holding that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused.
2. The complainant preferred complaint under Section 323, 328,
379, 506, 34 IPC against respondents. After preliminary evidence all
respondents were summoned for offences punishable under Sections 323,
328, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 328
IPC being triable by Session, the case was committed to the Court of
Session. The case of the complainant is that he is running a shop in a
rented premises. Respondent No.1 is the landlord. It has been claimed that
after 2008 respondent No.1 stopped issuing receipts and started demanding
rent already paid. On 25th of March, 2011 the petitioner was given kick and
fist blows in an altercation arising on account of illegal demand of rent by
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107796
2023:PHHC:107796
the respondents. On 26th of March, 2011 again at about 7.30 PM
respondents and their henchmen tried to forcibly evict the complainant. On
31st of March, 2011 it is again claimed that the complainant and his wife
were assaulted and the complainant was forced to drink some intoxicating
liquid.
3. After analyzing the evidence threadbare Trial Court dismissed
the complaint preferred by the complainant and acquitted the respondents
finding that :
(i) The wife of the complainant who appeared as PW-2 did
not support version of the complainant qua incident of
25th of March, 2011;
(ii) There is no medical evidence to support the allegations
made by the complainant qua injuries suffered by him on
25th of March, 2011;
(iii) Vide Exhibit PW3/B i.e. DDR dated 25th of March, 2011
complainant alleged that respondent No.1 entered his
shop with datar and threatened him that he will get his
legs broken but the said allegation is totally missing in
the complaint;
(iv) As per exhibit PW3/B-the DDR qua incident of 25th of
March, 2011, the complainant alleged that the occurrence
was seen by Vivek but he has not been cited as witness;
(v) No effort was made to prove any medical evidence qua
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107796
2023:PHHC:107796
incident of 25th of March, 2011.
(vi) Qua incident of 26th of March, 2011 also the narration of
PW-2 Rajni Dhir is totally contradictory and the persons
who are claimed to have threatened the complainant on
26th of March, 2011 have not been arraigned as accused;
(vii) Qua incident of 31st of March, 2011 Trial Court found
that both the witnesses i.e. PW-4 the complainant
himself and his wife PW-2 are unanimous in submitting
that the occurrence dated 31st of March, 2011 took place
at around 7.30 PM but surprisingly the complaint was
made to SSP on 31st of March, 2011 at 2.00/3.00 PM i.e.
4-5 hours even prior to the occurrence; and
(viii) Qua the alleged incident of poisoning, Trial Court
noticed that as per the records of the hospital the
complainant stated that he has consumed some poison of
his own and that fact stands admitted by the complainant
himself and the said fact further stands corroborated by
the statement of PW-2 Rajni Ohri, who admitted during
her cross-examination that as per the hospital records the
complainant admitted that it is he himself who consumed
poison on his own.
4. Ld. Counsel has not been able to point out that the aforesaid
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107796
2023:PHHC:107796
findings recorded by the Trial Court are result of misreading of evidence or
can be said to be not a possible view. It is also not the case that any
evidence on record was ignored by the Trial Court. The law w.r.t. exercise
of appellate jurisdiction stands settled by Four Judges Bench of Apex Court
in case of Bansidhar Mohanty vs. State of Orissa, reported as AIR 1955
Supreme Court 585 wherein it was held as under :
"xx xx xx
4. The principles on which the High Court should act in an
appeal from an order of acquittal have been quite clearly laid
down by the Privy Council in the case of -- 'Sheo Swarup v.
Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp. 229-230 (A). The same
principles have been so often reiterated by this Court that it is
hardly necessary to restate them 'in extenso'.
It will be sufficient to refer to the decisions of this Court
in -- 'Surajpal Singh v. The State', AIR 1952 Supreme Court
52; - 'Puran v. State of Punjab', AIR 1953 Supreme Court
459 and 'Narayan Ittiravi v. State of Travancore-Cochin' AIR
1953 Supreme Court 478. It is now well settled by the
abovementioned decisions that while in an appeal under Section
417, Criminal Procedure Code of the High Court has full power
to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was
founded, nevertheless, in exercising the power conferred by the
Code the High Court will give proper weight and consideration
to such matters as (i) the views of the trial Judge as to the
credibility of witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused reinforced by the fact of his acquittal at
the trial, (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt
and (iv) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of
seeing the witnesses."
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107796
2023:PHHC:107796
5. The same was reiterated in the case of Chandrappa and
others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein it was held
that :-
"(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 emphasize 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.
(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."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Further reiterated in the case of 'State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107796
2023:PHHC:107796
Banne @ Baijnath' (2009) 4 SCC 271.
7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through
records of the case.
8. In view of aforesaid settled proposition of law, this Court does
not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
More so, when the Trial Court has recorded a well reasoned finding after
appreciating each piece of evidence and it is not denied that the view taken
by the Trial Court is not only probable but rather more probable.
9. Consequently, the present application seeking leave to appeal
stands dismissed.
August 02, 2023 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107796
6 of 6
