Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudershan Malik & Ors vs Rohtash & Ors on 15 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006082
2024:PHHC:006082
CRM-A-72-MA-2016 -1-
223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-72-MA-2016
Date of Decision: 15.01.2024
SUDERSHAN MALIK AND OTHERS
...Applicants-Appellants
Versus
ROHTASH AND OTHERS
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
CRM-1608-2016
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1961
seeking condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the accompanying
application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and the delay of 28 days in filing the accompanying application is
condoned.
CRM-A-72-MA-2016
1. This instant application under Section 378(4) CrPC is
preferred against the order of acquittal dated 03.10.2015 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mewat vide which the present
respondents have been acquitted in criminal complaint COMA No.165 of
2015 filed under Sections 452, 458, 379, 380, 149, 506, 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Sections 25-54-59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006082
2024:PHHC:006082
2. The minimal facts as necessary for disposing this application
are that the applicants who are also brothers, are alleged owners of the
shop qua which the dispute arose. The above-mentioned complaint was
filed through their Special Power of Attorney - Dholan Singh. The said
shop was given on rent to one Ram Kumar, whose name is also
incorporated in the municipal records. The possession of the said shop was
further transferred to Dholan Singh who used it for running a business of
submersible motors & pipes. On 17.01.2006, in order to take possession of
the shop, the respondents tried to break open the lock of the shop in
question which led to a dispute and the matter was reported to the police.
Then on the next day, the respondents while carrying weapons including
country-made pistols (katta) in their hands forcibly entered into the shop
by breaking open its lock and threw out the material consisting of
submersible motors & pipes while making threats towards Dholan Singh.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after
perusing the record with his able assistance, it is clear that Dholan Singh
has failed to prove his possession over the shop in question. Furthermore,
the allegations made against the respondents fail to attribute any specific
role towards them. The learned trial Court has correctly extended the
benefit of reasonable doubt to the respondents and hence, the above-
mentioned order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court stands
validated.
4. 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006082
2024:PHHC:006082
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.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
finds that learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out
any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court
which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the
present application and hence, the leave to appeal is denied.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
15.01.2024
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006082
3 of 3
