Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs Jaswinder Kaur And Others on 5 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119020
241 2023:PHHC:119020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.4304 of 2020 in/and
CRM-A No.252 of 2020
Date of decision : 05.09.2023
Kuldeep Singh ....Applicant
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Ranjeet K. Jaswal, Advocate
for the applicant.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
CRM No.4304 of 2020
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the instant application seeking
leave to appeal.
For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 25
days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is hereby condoned.
Application stands disposed off.
CRM-A No.252 of 2020
The complainant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment
dated 23rd of October, 2019 passed by JMIC, Amritsar whereby the
complaint preferred by the applicant against the respondents/accused stands
dismissed and the respondents/accused stand acquitted.
2. Complaint was preferred by the applicant against the
respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 471,
120-B IPC. As per the complainant he along with accused No.1 Darshan
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119020
CRM-A No.252 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119020
Singh and one Ranjit Singh are the sons of late Arjun Singh. Arjun Singh
was owner of two parcels of land. One situated in the village Kambo and
the other in the Revenue Estate of village Bhoru. Apart from the residential
house in village Kambo. It is claimed that Arjun Singh during his lifetime
partitioned the aforesaid land. Land situated in village Bhoru fell to the
share of accused No.1 Darshan Singh. The two other brothers i.e. the
complainant and Ranjit Singh along with their mother Harbans Kaur got the
land situated in the Revenue Estate of Kamboh. Qua her share mother
Harbans Kaur executed a Will dated 15.03.1994 in favour of the
complainant and his brother Ranjit Singh. She died on 28.04.1997. It is
admitted case that prior to her death Harbans Kaur gave power of attorney
pertaining to her share of land in favour of complainant and other brother
Ranjit Singh. Both the complainant and Ranjit Singh executed registered
Sale Deeds acting as attorneys of Harbans Kaur in favour of their respective
wives on 11.08.1995. Wife of Ranjit Singh as well as wife of the petitioner
alienated the aforesaid land received from Harbans Kaur vide registered
Sale Deeds of the year 2001 in favour of accused No.3 Harjit Singh. The
complaint has been filed claiming that an Agreement to Sell has been
forged and the forgery is evident from the fact that the said Agreement
bearing thumb impression of Harbans Kaur is dated 17.05.2005. Harbans
Kaur having died in the year 1997 cannot be believed to have thumb-
marked Agreement to Sell on 17.05.2005. Complainant alleges that the
accused No.1 Darshan Singh committed the said forgery.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119020
CRM-A No.252 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119020
3. After the complainant led evidence accused were summoned
for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC only and were charged for
the same. Trial Court dismissed the complaint observing that once it is
admitted that the entire share of Harbans Kaur stood alienated firstly in
favour of wives of the complainant and his brother and subsequently in
favour of accused No.3 in the year 2001 itself, there was no occasion to
forge thumb of Harbans Kaur as claimed by the complainant in the year
2005. It has further come on record that the alleged forged document has
not seen light of the day and Sukhpreet Kaur, Finger Print & Handwriting
expert examined as CW3 admits that the thumb impressions compared by
her were taken from photocopy documents and she has not even seen the
originals. She further admitted in cross-examination that the thumb-
impressions in question were not even compared with the admitted original
thumb-impression of Harbans Kaur. It has further come on record that
mutation in favour of the petitioners qua land situated in village Kambo
already stands cancelled by the Appellate Revenue Authorities and the
complainant admits that he himself has alienated considerable land in
favour of the accused.
4. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the Trial Court
found that there was nothing on record to prove that the accused persons
have in any manner forged the document. Apart therefrom the complainant
admits that for forgery of signature/thumb-impression of deceased Darshan
Singh, an FIR was registered against the complainant, the other brother
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119020
CRM-A No.252 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119020
Ranjit Singh as well as their brother-in-law in which some of them have
earned conviction.
5. The law w.r.t. 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 holding 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."
6. The same was reiterated in the case of Chandrappa and
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119020
CRM-A No.252 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119020
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)
7. Further reiterated in the case of 'State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Banne @ Baijnath' (2009) 4 SCC 271.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119020
CRM-A No.252 of 2020 2023:PHHC:119020
8. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through
records of the case.
8. In view of above this Court does not find that there is any
reason to hold that the view taken by the Trial Court is not probable or that
the Trial Court committed any error that can lead this Court to a different
conclusion on re-appreciation of evidence. Resultantly, the present
application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed.
September 05, 2023 (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119020
6 of 6
