Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs Chamkaur Singh And Others on 5 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116423
CRM-A-516 of 2022 2023:PHHC:116423 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-516 of 2022
Date of decision: 5th September, 2023
Baldev Singh
Applicant
Versus
Chamkaur Singh and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present: Mr. S. S. Randhawa, Advocate for the applicant.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):
1. This is an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking
leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondents in Complaint Case CIS
No. COMI-518-2014 under Sections 323, 506, 341 and 34 IPC .
2. The brief facts are that on 3.6.2013, an altercation took place
in the court room while the parties had come to attend the criminal
proceedings. The injuries were inflicted to Mukhtiar Singh and Baldev
Singh (complainant) with the walking stick used by Mukhtiar Singh. The
applicant had earlier approached the police authorities by filing an
application for registering FIR. An action under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.
was taken, dis-satisfied with the action, the present complaint was filed.
3. The complaint was dismissed considering that the complainant-
Baldev Singh had improved his version in the complaint from the initial
application made to the police. It was considered that in the application
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116423
CRM-A-516 of 2022 2023:PHHC:116423 [2]
filed before the police it was stated that an altercation took place. There
was no mention of use of stick or inflicting injuries, his deposition was not
found worth reliance. The injured-Mukhtiar Singh instead of getting his
examination-in-chief recorded stated that the statement made by him at pre-
summoning stage be treated as his deposition. The court concluded that
though presence of the accused on the date of occurrence in the court room
was proved; the medico-legal reports proved injuries sustained by
Mukhtair Singh and Baldev Singh but the complainant failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries were inflicted by the accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court erred
in dismissing the complaint once it was proved that the accused were
present at the spot and Baldev Singh and Mukhtair Singh sustained injuries.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the paper
book.
6. The scope for interference in appeal against acquittal is well
settled. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh,
2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal held:
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be
examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,
1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal
against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment
under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the
evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined
to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for
interference."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116423
CRM-A-516 of 2022 2023:PHHC:116423 [3]
7. It's a trite law that there cannot be re-appreciation of the
evidence at stage of considering application. The depositions of two star
witnesses were not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
injuries sustained by Mukhtiar Singh and Baldev Singh were inflicted by
the accused. The view taken by the trial court is plausible.
8. No case is made out for interference. The application is
dismissed.
[AVNEESH JHINGAN]
JUDGE
5th September, 2023
mk
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116423
3 of 3
