Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nazam Singh @ Raja vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 April, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal, Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
CRM-A-989-2019 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.207
CRM-17794-2019 in/and
CRM-A-989-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 22.03.2024
Pronounced on: 24.04.2024
Nazam Singh @ Raja ..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J.
CRM-17794-2019
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condonation of delay of 214 days in filing the appeal.
Heard.
Sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in
filing the appeal. Hence, the application is allowed and delay of 214 days
in filing the appeal is condoned.
1 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
CRM-A-989-2019
2. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 18.08.2018, of
respondent No.2, namely, Resham Singh and Puran Singh (since
deceased), who were acquitted of the charges under Sections 307, 326,
325, 323, 504 & 506 IPC by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mansa, the present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4)
Cr.P.C. by the complainant, namely, Nazam Singh @ Raja seeking
special leave to appeal.
Brief facts
3. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 21.05.2014 at
about 2:00 p.m., the complainant along with his wife Kulwinder Kaur had
taken their mother Surjit Kaur to the fields. When the complainant and
his wife were sowing cotton seeds, accused Puran Singh came there on
his tractor Swaraj 855 in their fields and started cultivating the same
forcibly. When complainant and his wife Kulwinder Kaur tried to stop
Puran Singh from cultivating the land, he gave a 'Takua' blow on the
head of the complainant. The complainant raised the 'Soti' of his mother
to save himself. The 'Takua' struck on the little finger of his right hand.
Then again, Puran Singh gave the 'Takua' blow which struck on the right
hand of the complainant and the 'Soti' fell down. In the meanwhile,
Resham Singh son of Puran Singh also came at the spot and he gave a
'Soti' blow on the back side of the head of the complainant and the
complainant tried to run away. Thereafter, Puran Singh and Resham
Singh started dragging his mother Surjit Kaur, due to which, she suffered
injuries on her neck, left arm, right arm and on her back. Kuldeep Singh
2 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
son of Gurjant Singh who was working in his fields came at the spot and
witnessed the occurrence. The accused persons fled away from the spot.
The complainant, his wife Kulwinder Kaur and mother Surjit Kaur were
taken to hospital at Joga where the complainant and his mother were
admitted but due to serious injuries, the complainant and his mother were
admitted to Civil Hospital, Mansa.
4. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused were
summoned under Sections 326, 325, 323, 504 & 506 IPC read with
Section 34 IPC.
5. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined CW1
Kuldeep Singh who supported the version of the complainant as eye
witness.
6. Complainant Nazam Singh appeared as CW2 and reiterated
the version of the complaint.
7. CW3 Kamalpreet, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Mansa
medico-legally examined Surjit Kaur and found the injuries as detailed in
medical report Ex.PA. The manual medical report of Surjit Kaur is
Ex.PB. The kind of weapon for injuries was sharp in case of injury No.1
and blunt for the rest. On the same time, he medico legally examined
Nazam Singh and his detailed report is Ex.PD and manual medical report
is Ex.PE. After examining the record i.e. MLR and X-ray report, injury
No.2 was declared as grievous in nature and this injury was suffered with
sharp edged weapon.
3 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
8. CW4 Dr. Manav Jindal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital
Mansa tendered his duly sworn affidavit as Ex.CW4/A, copy of X-ray
report Ex.PW4/B and copy of X-ray report of Surjit Kaur as Ex.CW4/C.
9. Charges under Sections 326, 324 & 323 IPC read with
Section 34 IPC was framed against accused Resham Singh. The
proceedings against accused Puran Singh were abated due to his death.
10. After framing of charge, accused cross examined all the
witnesses except CW4 Dr. Manav Jindal and thereafter, the complainant
closed the evidence.
11. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded
and all the incriminating evidence was put to him wherein he denied and
stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. In the year
2014, he along with his father took the land measuring 14 kanals for
cultivating from Ranjit Kaur. On 21.05.2014, Nazam Singh, Surjit Kaur,
Kulwinder Kaur, Baldev Singh and Kaka Singh inflicted injuries to his
father Puran Singh when he was ploughing the above said land. On the
statement of his father Puran Singh, FIR No.32 dated 22.05.2014 under
Sections 323, 324 & 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered at
Police Station Joga against the above said persons, who were facing trial
and he was eye witness to the same and to put pressure on him the present
complaint has been filed on false facts.
Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the impugned order of acquittal is liable to be set aside as the findings
given by the learned trial Court were not sustainable in the eyes of law
4 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
and the same are based on conjectures and surmises. The learned trial
Court did not apply its judicial mind and did not appreciate the
overwhelming evidence produced on record by the appellant which fully
connected the respondent-accused with the commission of offence for
which he had been charge-sheeted.
Analysis
13. After going through the statements of witnesses and
documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that this case
is a cross version of FIR No.32 dated 22.05.2014 under Sections 323, 324
read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Joga. Date and time
of the occurrence is the same, meaning thereby that the occurrence was
admitted by both the parties but the point of determination in the present
case was to ascertain the aggressor party. As per the version of the
complainant, in the present complaint on 21.05.2014 at about 2:00 p.m.,
he alongwith his wife Kulwinder Kaur and mother Surjit Kaur were
sowing seeds in their field when Puran Singh came there and fight took
place. Puran Singh gave a 'Takua' blow on the head of the complainant
and the complainant in order to save himself raised the 'Soti' of his
mother and his little finger was cut. In the meanwhile, Resham Singh son
of Puran Singh came at the spot and gave a 'Soti' blow on the back side of
the head of the complainant. The complainant tried to save himself and
ran away then, Puran Singh and Resham Singh dragged Surjit Kaur,
mother of the complainant.
5 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
Medical evidence
(a) With regard to injured Surjit Kaur
14. CW3 Dr. Kamalpreet, Medical Officer examined Surjit Kaur
and proved report Ex.PA. MLR is Ex.PB and pictorial diagram is Ex.PC.
In cross examination, he stated that depth of injury No.1 on the person of
Surjit Kaur is not mentioned in the MLR. Possibility of injury on person
of Surjit Kaur being self suffered or due to fall cannot be ruled out.
(b) With regard to injured Nazam Singh
15. CW3 Dr. Kamalpreet, Medical Officer proved MLR of
Nazam Singh Ex.PE and pictorial diagram as Ex.PF. He further stated that
injury No.2 as detailed in X-ray report was declared grievous in nature
and it was caused with sharp edged weapon. The injury No.2 on the
person of Nazam Singh is on the palm surface only and small portion
attached on dorsal and lateral surface and such injury can be caused in
case of open hand. Injury No.2 suffered by Nazam Singh is on the palm
side and not the reverse side of the hand. If he had tried to stop the blow
of the accused with 'Soti' then the fingers would have been in the shape
of grip around the 'Soti' and the injury No.2 on little finger could not be
caused. Moreover, there is no injury on the other fingers. 'Takua' is a
deadly weapon having a long blade of 6 to 10 inches. So, it appears that it
is a self suffered injury. CW4 Dr. Manav Jindal proved the X-ray report
of Nazam Singh Ex.CW4/B. There was no fracture on the person of Surjit
Kaur as per X-ray report of Surjit Kaur which is proved by him as
Ex.CW4/C.
6 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
Defence version
16. The accused Resham Singh in his defence tendered a copy of
jamabandi Ex. DB in which Wazir Singh was shown as the owner in
possession to the extent of 746/2983 share and there was a reference of
report No.92 regarding mutation No.197 dated 24.10.2013 vide which the
mutation was sanctioned in favour of Krishna Devi widow of Wazir
Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Ranjit Kaur, Sarbjit Kaur children of Wazir
Singh son of Bachan Singh in equal share. As per revenue record, the
property owned by Wazir Singh was inherited by Krishna Devi and
children of Wazir Singh. If the land was inherited by LRs of Wazir Singh,
then they have right to give land on lease to anyone. It has not come on
record that the complainant Nazam Singh etc. were ever in possession of
the share of land owned by Wazir Singh. Ex.DC was rapat No.31 entered
by Sub Inpsector Jugraj Singh in which it was mentioned that on
21.05.2014 Puran Singh was cultivating the land taken by him on lease
from Ranjit Kaur and Nazam Singh etc. had caused injuries. Ex.DD is
case titled as State Vs. Nazam Singh etc. and charges were framed against
Nazam Singh (who is the complainant in the present case), Babu Singh,
Kulwinder Kaur, Sarvjit Kaur under Sections 324, 325 , 34 IPC on
07.05.2015. Ex.DF is a copy of challan presented in case FIR No.32 dated
22.05.2013. Ex.DG is case FIR No.32 dated 22.05.2013 registered by
Puran Singh accused in the present case.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments while
dealing with scope and powers of the appellate Court in dealing with an
appeal order of acquittal has elucidated:-
7 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
(i) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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 emphasise 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.
(iv) 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.
8 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
(v) 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.
18. A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok
Kumar Singh Chandel Vs State of U.P. 2022 SCC Online SC 1525 has
adverted with question of jurisdiction of High Court in appeals against
acquittal. The Apex Court has held:
I. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Appeals Against
Acquittals
73. This is the first preliminary submission and it is
based on a principle laid down by this Court that in an appeal
against acquittal, the criminal appellate court will not
interfere with the acquittal unless there are substantial and
compelling reasons. The common submission of all the
counsels appearing for the Appellants is, therefore, that the
High Court was not justified in reversing the order of
acquittal.
74. The position of law with respect to the jurisdiction
of the High Court in cases of appeals against acquittals is
well established. After reviewing the judgments on this
subject, this Court clarified in Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 that:
"3. Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring
9 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
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 emphasise 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."
75. It is sufficient to note the principle laid down in the
Constitution Bench of this Court in M.G. Agarwal v. State
of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405:
"16. ...But the true legal position is that however
circumspect and cautious the approach of the High Court may
be in dealing with appeals against acquittals, it is
undoubtedly entitled to reach its own conclusions upon the
evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. This position has been clarified by
the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor and
Nur Mohammad v. Emperor [AIR 1945 PC 151]
17. ....Similarly in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab
[(1952) 2 SCC 709 : 1953 SCR 418] it was observed that the
interference of the High Court in an appeal against the order
of acquittal would be justified only if there are "very
substantial and compelling reasons to do so". In some other
decisions, it has been stated that an order of acquittal can be
reversed only for "good and sufficiently cogent reasons" or
for "strong reasons". In appreciating the effect of these
10 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
observations, it must be remembered that these observations
were not intended to lay down a rigid or inflexible rule which
should govern the decision of the High Court in appeals
against acquittals. They were not intended, and should not be
read to have intended to introduce an additional condition in
clause (a) of Section 423(1) of the Code. All that the said
observations are intended to emphasise is that the approach of
the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal
ought to be cautious because as Lord Russell observed in the
case of Sheo Swarup, the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused "is not certainly weakened by the fact that he
has been acquitted at his trial". Therefore, the test suggested
by the expression "substantial and compelling reasons"
should not be construed as a formula which has to be rigidly
applied in every case. That is the effect of the recent
decisions of this Court, for instance, in Sanwat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715] and Harbans Singh
v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC 439] and so, it is not
necessary that before reversing a judgment of acquittal, the
High Court must necessarily characterise the findings
recorded therein as perverse..."
76. Following the Constitution Bench, this Court in
Ghurey Lal v. State of UP (2008) 10 SCC 450 has
formulated the following principles:
"69. The following principles emerge from cases
11 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
1. The Appellate Court may review the evidence
in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of
reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can
reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can
review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both
facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven
guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was
before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be
given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when
a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High
Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must
also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that
the trial court was wrong.
70. In light of the above, the High Court and other
appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles
crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule
or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has
"very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
12 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
A number of instances arise in which the appellate
court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons"
to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and
compelling reasons" exist when:
i. The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong;
ii. The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous
view of law;
iii. The trial court's judgment is likely to result in
"grave miscarriage of justice";
iv. The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with
the evidence was patently illegal;
v. The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
vi. The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread
the material evidence or has ignored material documents like
dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii. This list is intended to be illustrative, not
exhaustive.
2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight
and consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that
leads to acquittal, the other to conviction-the High Courts/
Appellate Courts must rule in favor of the accused.
13 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
4. The appellant is seeking special leave to appeal
against judgment and order whereby trial court has acquitted
the respondent. It is settled law that granting of special leave
to appeal against acquittal is a discretionary power. However,
such power has to be exercised judiciously and the Courts are
not permitted to exercise the same at whims or fancies and
arbitrarily. Arbitrariness has always been held anathema to
exercise of any power."
Conclusion
19. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence had taken place on
the land of Wazir Singh. Therefore, the complainant's version with
regard to sowing the seeds in their field and being attacked by the
respondent(s)-accused appears to be false. From the entire evidence on
record, it is clear that the injury No.2 suffered by Nazam Singh is a self
suffered injury. The occurrence did not take place in the manner in which
the complainant had stated it to be. So, this Court is of the considered
view that the complainant has failed to produce evidence of such nature
which could be relied upon beyond doubt to connect the respondents with
the subject offences.
20. The law with regard to interference by the appellate Court is
crystallized, unless, the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or
unjustified, interference with the same would not be warranted. An
additional layer of protection is granted to an accused in cases where the
accused already enjoys an acquittal. There is always a presumption of
innocence and in case of acquittal, there is double presumption. The
14 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055436-DB
2024:PHHC:055436-DB
burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment and we do
not find any infirmity in the said order. There is no manifest error or non-
appreciation of evidence which would compel us to take a different view.
21. In view of the above, we do not find any manifest illegality or
perversity in the judgment dated 18.08.2018 acquitting the respondent
No.2 of charges under Sections 307, 326, 325, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and
there is hardly any substance in this application much less, in the appeal
and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH) (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
24.04.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
15 of 15
