Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs Joginder Pal & Ors on 5 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
2023:PHHC:158146
CRM-A-1327-MA-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
231 CRM-A-1327-MA-2017
Date of Decision: 05.12.2023
AJAY KUMAR -Applicant
Versus
JOGINDER PAL & ORS. -Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Argued by: Mr. Johny, Advocate with
Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate
for the applicant.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. The instant application, seeking grant of leave, is directed
against the order of acquittal dated 27.03.2017, rendered by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, whereby, the respondents have been
acquitted from the charges framed against them, under Sections 323 and
148 of the IPC, in a private complaint.
2. The roots of the instant application can be traced to a complaint
made by the present applicant, alleging therein that, on 07.04.2010, at about
06:45 p.m., besides his being attacked by the respondents herein, snatching
was also done by them. The contents of complaint, as narrated in paragraph
No.2 of the order of acquittal (supra), are extracted hereinafter:-
"2. Briefly, it has been stated that, complainant has been a peace
loving and respectable person of locality and belonging to Brahmin
family. On dated 07.04.2010 at about 06.45 P.M., complainant was
going on his motor-cycle bearing No. PB-35-E-5456 towards market
and while he reached ahead of Eravedic School Lamini, Pathankot;
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
2023:PHHC:158146
accused persons namely Joginder Pal son of Kaka Ram, Jatinder
Singh alias Nanni, Mahesh Kumasr, Joginder Singh son of Gian
Singh, Chuni Lal and Amandeep Singh were already standing there,
while forming unlawful assembly. Accused Jatinder Singh @ Nanni
was armed with a bat, Mahesh Kumar armed with stick and accused
Amandeep Singh was armed Sword (Kirpan) and the remaining
accused were empty handed. While seeing complainant, all accused
forcibly stopped him and criminally intimidated him. Accused
Joginder Pal son of Kaka Ram raised a lalkara "Phar lao Ajay nu
aaj is da bhog pa dayeye". On this, accused Amandeep Singh gave
reverse side of kirpan blow to him, which hit on complainant's upper
back side. Then, accused Mahesh Kumar gave stick blow on the left
and right arms as well as forehead of complainant. Accused
Joginder Pal son of Kaka Ram, Joginder Singh son of Gian Singh
and Chuni Lal gave fist and slap blows on the different part of the
body of complainant. Accused also caused damaged to the motor-
cycle of complainant with the sticks and with reverse side blow of
kirpan, inflicted by accused Mahesh Kumar and Amandeep Singh.
Complainant raised noise 'Bachao-Bachao' and in the meanwhile,
one Krishan Kant son of Ram Rakha and Raj Kumar son of Gurwar
Mal suddenly came and that, on seeing said persons, all the accused
fled away from the place of occurrence. While leaving the place, they
not only threatened the complainant with life but, they also taken
away his mobile phone and cash amount of Rs. 22,680/-. Afore-
stated Krishan Kant arranged some conveyance and complainant
was get admitted in Civil Hospital, Pathankot, wherein his MLR
dated 08.04.2010 was conducted. It has further been stated that,
matter was reported to the police Station Division No.1, Pathankot
but, police did not take any action. All the accused have been very
motivated persons. They also inflicted themselves self styled injuries
and get registered a false FIR No.110 dated 09.04.2010 against
complainant and his witnesses Krishan Kant and Raj Kumar. Father
of accused Jatinder Singh alias Nanni has been retired from the
police department. So,accused party managed the police officials
and as such, it has been requested that action be taken against all
the accused, as per law."
3. Consequent upon filing of the complaint (supra), the applicant
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
2023:PHHC:158146
herein led his preliminary evidence, which led to the learned trial Court
summoning the respondents herein to face trial for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 323, 148, 149 of the IPC.
4. Subsequently, finding a prima facie case, Notice of Accusation
for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 148 of the IPC
was served upon the respondents herein.
5. However, the learned trial Court, after considering the oral
testimonies as well as documentary evidence, as led before it, proceeded to
record the order of acquittal (supra), on the ground, that the
complainant/applicant herein has miserably failed to establish the guilt of
accused/respondents herein, beyond reasonable doubt.
6. There is no dispute that this Court can re-appreciate the entire
evidence while dealing with an order of acquittal. The High Court has full
power to appreciate the entire evidence to reach its own conclusions and it
is also open for the High Court, to re-determine the question of facts and
law. For this, we place reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar,
2008 (9) SCC 475.
7. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa vs. State of
Karnataka, 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 92 laid down broad principles to be
followed while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, which
are as under:
"(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, based on the evidence before it, may reach its
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
2023:PHHC:158146
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 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."
8. What led to the learned trial Court recording the order of
acquittal (supra), was that, there occurred unexplained delay of nine months
in filing the complaint (supra), as the alleged occurrence took place on
07.04.2010, whereas, the complainant (supra) was filed on 20.01.2011.
Moreover, the feeble explanation qua delay, as provided by the
complainant/applicant herein, inasmuch as, no action being taken by the
police upon his grievance, also did not find favour with the learned trial
Court concerned, as he did not produce any alleged application regarding
the alleged occurrence, in support of his version qua lethargic and lackluster
approach of police.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
2023:PHHC:158146
9. Not only this, the material contradictions and discrepancies in
the testimonies of complainant's witnesses, which went on to demolish the
case set up by the complainant, also resulted in the learned trial Court
acquitting the accused/respondents herein.
10. This Court has made a meticulous survey of the impugned
order of acquittal, however, it does not appears to be tainted with any
illegality or perversity. The reasons for forming this inference are elucidated
hereinafter.
11. The alleged occurrence took place on 07.04.2010, while the
complaint (supra) was apparently made on 20.01.2011, thereby creating a
delay of approx. 8½ months. What renders this delay more hazardous is the
failure of the complainant/applicant herein to provide any suitable
explanation for it, besides the explanation, if any provided, was an
unreasonable, in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence.
12. Furthermore, there are material contradictions and
discrepancies evident on the face of the record, inasmuch as, applicant
herein/CW2 Ajay Kumar deposing that he was taken to the hospital
concerned by CW1 Krishan Kant, whereas, CW1 Krishan Kant, upon being
cross-examined, deposed that he did not accompany the complainant/CW1
Ajay Kumar to the hospital concerned. The trail of contradictions does not
end here, as the applicant herein/CW2 Ajay Kumar narrated in his
complaint that the accused/respondents herein had snatched his mobile and
cash amount of Rs.22,680/-, whereas, while making testification before trial
Court, he stated that only his mobile worth Rs.26-27,000/- was snatched by
accused/respondents herein.
13. Also, though CW2 Ajay Kumar deposed that he suffered about
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
2023:PHHC:158146
15 to 20 injures in the alleged occurrence, and, that his medical examination
was conducted immediately after said alleged occurrence, however, the
record does not lend any corroboration to his deposition. The impugned
order of acquittal reveals that upon a perusal of medical document (i.e.
MLR, produced on record by complainant, but not exhibited and proved
during his evidence), it surfaced that his medical examination was
conducted on next day, i.e. 08.04.2010, whereupon, only three bruise
injuries were found on his body.
14. Therefore, the testimonies of CW1 and CW2 do not inspire any
confidence, rather are covered by clouds of suspicion.
15. Ordinarily, the order of acquittal will not be interfered with,
lightly, merely because other view is possible. Upon passing of an order of
acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced
and strengthened, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harijana
Thirupala vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2002) 6 SCC 470.
16. Upon a cumulative reading and appreciation of the evidence on
record, this Court comes to a conclusion that the testifications of the
complainant's witnesses are not credible, rather the same are found to be
replete with infirmities. Moreover, the reasoning given in the trial Court's
judgment does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-
appreciation and non-appreciation of the evidence on record. It is trite law
that order of acquittal should not be disturbed unless there are substantial or
compelling circumstances.
17. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with
the order of acquittal. In sequel, the application for leave to appeal is
hereby declined, it being bereft of merit, and, the impugned order of
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
2023:PHHC:158146
acquittal, rendered by the learned trial Court, is hereby upheld.
18. The case property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with law.
The record be forthwith sent down.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE
05.12.2023
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158146
7 of 7
