Punjab-Haryana High Court
Poonam vs Ram Kishan Nagpal And Ors on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013454
2024:PHHC:013454
CRR-2054-2018(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2054-2018(O&M)
Poonam
........Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kishan Nagpal and others
.......Respondents
CRR-2553-2018(O&M)
Poonam
........Petitioner
Versus
Ajay and others
........Respondents
Date of Decision: 29.01.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate
Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Shubhdeep Singh, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 3 in CRR-2054-2018
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above-mentioned
revision petitions as the same arising of the common FIR. For the sake of
brevity, the facts are taken from CRR-2054-2018.
2. These instant revision petitions have been preferred against the
impugned order dated 30.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Karnal whereby, respondent no.1, 2 and 3 namely Ram Kishan Nagpal, Arjun
Chhabra and Puran, respectively in CRR-2054-2018 & respondents No.1
and 2 namely Ajay and Sanjay respectively in CRR-2553-2018, have been
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013454
2024:PHHC:013454
acquitted and the judgement of conviction dated 07.02.2014 as well as the order
of sentence dated 10.02.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Karnal in complaint case No. 100/2012 instituted on
14.03.2006/28.04.2009/16.11.2012 under Sections 323, 452, 148, 149, 506 of
IPC have been set aside.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner and the above-mentioned
respondents are immediate neighbours and the petitioner made a complaint
against them to HUDA alleging them to have made an illegal construction on
their house. Thereupon, in order to settle score with the petitioner, the
respondents started abusing the brother of the petitioner on 02.03.2006. When
the petitioner came out of her house and raised objection to the abuses being
hurled, the respondents entered her house and gave a slap on her right ear.
Further, respondent Sanjay gave a Danda blow on her right arm, co-accused
Billo gave a brick blow on her hand, respondent Puran gave a lathi blow on her
right thigh, respondent Ram Kishan Nagpal held her from her hair and
respondent Arjun gave her slap and fist blows. When the mother of the petitioner
tried to rescue her, co-accused Kamlesh gave a leg blow ther mother upon which
she fell on the floor. When the petitioner and her mother raised hue and cry, the
respondents along with other accused left the place of incident but while leaving,
threatened the petitioner and her family members of dire consequences if they
did not sell their house. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the hospital and
medico-legally examined. Aggrieved by the complacency of the police, the
petitioner filed a private complaint.
4. Learned trial Court convicted the above-mentioned five respondents
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013454
2024:PHHC:013454
out of eight accused summoned to face trial and sentenced each of them to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 323/149 IPC, 6
months simple imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and 1 year simple
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000 (in default S.I of 15 days) under
Section 452/149 IPC, respectively.
5. Thereafter, the respondents filed two separate appeals against the
abovesaid judgement of conviction and the order of sentence. Learned lower
Appellate Court by a common judgment and after observing that the learned trial
Court did not appreciate the facts, evidence and legal preposition of the present
case in the right perspective, allowed both the appeals, thereby, acquitting the
respective respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-complainant has
preferred the present revision petitions.
CONTENTIONS
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was well
established before the learned trial Court that due to previous enmity, the
respondents after trespassing into the house of the petitioner, gave her and her
mother specific injuries. It is further contended that learned lower Appellate
Court wrongly reversed the judgement of conviction by not taking into
consideration the fact that examination of doctor is not necessary in order to
prove simple injuries and solitary testimony of the injured is sufficient to hold
the accused guilty, which in present case has been substantiated by the testimony
of the mother of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the private respondents in CRR-2054-2018
contends that lower Appellate Court has correctly reversed the judgement of
conviction passed by learned trial Court as the father of the petitioner-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013454
2024:PHHC:013454
complainant himself admitted in his statement (Mark-DA) that no occurrence as
alleged by the petitioner had taken place and that this evidence was wrongly
ignored by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner and
her mother habitually filed multiple complaints against the respondents as well
as other persons but all of them resulted in acquittal or dismissal. It is further
contended that the father of the petitioner also admitted that the petitioner had
levelled false allegations against the respondents but as her father was never
produced as a witness before the learned trial Court, which should lead to
adverse inference as even this Court in its order dated 13.11.2009 in COCP
No.1602 of 2008 qua the petitioners in another case had observed that the
petitioner and her mother were in habit of making false complaints.
ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the
paper-book with his able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner herself
admitted in her cross-examination that her brother is suffering from mental
illness due to which he used to roam naked hurling abuses towards the people in
the locality and at times, even carried a brick in his hand. This resulted in
multiple quarrels between the petitioner, her mother and the people in the
locality. Further perusal of the allegations levelled by the petitioner and her
cross-examination shows that offences under Section 148 and 452 IPC are not
made out. As far as the offence under Section 323 is concerned, that petitioner
examined the concerned doctor in her preliminary evidence but failed to examine
the same in her pre-charge or post-charge evidence due to which cross-
examination of said doctor was never conducted. Even if the MLR report is
taken into consideration, the fact that there is only one visible injury shows that
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013454
2024:PHHC:013454
the allegations made by the petitioner are highly exaggerated. After appreciating
the complete record as well as the contentions made by the respective counsels,
this Court is inclined to hold that the impugned order passed by the lower
Appellate Court is correct.
9. Furthermore, the power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order
of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the
settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points
towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should
prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has
the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their
demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution
witnesses. (See H.D. Sundara and others Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal
Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram v. State of H.P., 1973
(2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415). A Division bench of this Court in the judgment passed in State of Haryana
Vs. Ankit and others CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that
presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by
the trial Court.
CONCLUSION
10. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petitions stand
dismissed on merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
January 29, 2024
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013454
5 of 5
