Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Mahinder And Ors on 11 September, 2023
2023:PHHC:118840-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
245 CRM-A-2-2022
DATE OF DECISION: 11.09.2023
STATE OF HARYANA ... Applicant (s)
Versus
MAHINDER AND ORS ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Present: Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana for the applicant (s).
36 2 2 2k
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
This application is filed for seeking leave to appeal against the
order of acquittal of the respondents dated 17.12.2019 in a case registered vide
FIR No.232 dated 21.06.2012 under Sections 323, 307, 506, 34 IPC at Police
Station Ganaur, Sonepat.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the
injured had sustained injuries which included a head injury on Jagbir (PW-3)
the trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondents. He also submits that
only because of lapses in the investigation with regard to the failure to explain
the injuries sustained by two of the respondents (accused), they could not be
acquitted.
3. Heard. The occurrence was stated to be taken place at 07:30 a.m.
on 18.06.2012 when the informant (PW-2 Ranbir) was irrigating his fields and
he is stated to have been attacked by the respondents (accused) as water had
gone into their fields. Jagbir (PW-3) had also arrived at the spot and he was
SWARN JIT SINGH
2023.09.12 16:36
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-A-2-2022 2
also inflicted injuries by the respondents. The trial Court, after examining the
evidence and recording statements of the respondents under Section 313
Cr.P.C., acquitted them primarily on the ground that it was not proved that the
respondents were the initial aggressors as the injuries sustained by two of
them had not been explained by the prosecution. The fight is stated to have
taken place as water was allegedly released into the fields of the respondents.
Once the injuries sustained by two of the respondents are established then it is
enjoined on the prosecution to disclose the nature of the injuries and the
manner in which they have been sustained. PW-9, ASI Satpal, who was the
Investigating Officer, had admitted in his deposition that two of the
respondents had sustained multiple injuries. The relevant extract of his
deposition is reproduced hereunder:-
"Tt is correct that the complainant party
(accused party) (wrongly mentioned 'complainant party')
i.e. Mahender and Krishan etc. also sustained injuries at
the hands of Ranbir, Jagbir in the alleged occurrence. I
cannot say whether I received any ruqua regarding injured
Mahender but I received Ruqua regarding injured Krishan.
I had obtained the medical documents pertaining to injured
Krishan from P.S. Gannour. It is wrong to suggest that I
deliberately did not collect any X-ray report/film depicting
fracture in tha head of injured person. Krishan was referred
to PGIMS Rohtak where as injured Mahender was referred
to R.P. Center Delhi. I collected medical papers of injured
SWARN JIT SINGH
2023.09.12 16:36
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-A-2-2022 3
Mahender from R.P. Hospital Delhi. One of the eye of
injured Mahender was oprated in Delhi that was right eye
of injured Mahender. I cannot say whether injured
Mahender lost eyesight of his right eye partially or
completely. Self stated that I had collected medical
documents of injured Mahender from R.P. Centre AITMS
New Delhi as given by the doctor to me."
4. It is manifest from the testimony of ASI Satpal (PW-9) that the
injuries were indeed sustained by the respondents namely Mahender and
Krishan and they had made complaint to the police in this regard. However,
the cross-version has not been recorded by the police and there is no
explanation in this regard. Once a complaint had been made to the police with
regard to the injuries being sustained by two of the respondents, it was
incumbent upon the police to have registered a cross version.
5. Furthermore, the genesis of the fight has not been proved from
the evidence led by the prosecution as to which party is the aggressor. The
incident is stated to be the outcome of a quarrel with regard to the release of
water into the fields of the respondents. It is well settled that the judgment of
acquittal ought not to be lightly interfered by the Appellate Court as
presumption of the innocence of the accused is re-enforced by an order of
acquittal and even if two views are possible the view which is favourable to
SWARN JIT SINGH
2023.09.12 16:36
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-A-2-2022 4
the accused which has resulted in his acquittal would be preferred. Reference
can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Chandrappa & Ors v. State Of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415.
6. Consequently, we do not find any manifest illegality or perversity
in the judgment of acquittal warranting interference in appeal. The application
for grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA)
JUDGE
11.09.2023
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SWARN JIT SINGH
2023.09.12 16:36
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
