Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jit Singh vs Manjit Singh And Others on 6 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035445
2024:PHHC:035445
240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1984-2019
Date of decision: 06.03.2024
JIT SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: - Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition against the judgment dated
08.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby
the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya in criminal complaint bearing CIS No.
COMI/335/2013 dated 29.09.2008 filed under Section 500 and 120-B of the
IPC, has been set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts are that father of the petitioner-complainant
namely Joginder Singh was appointed as the President, Gurudwar Committee
for Gurudwara Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib located in village Mastipalkot.
The S.G.P.C. authorities allowed the local committee to continue until the next
tenure till the year 2000. However, no one from the local committee was
informed regarding the appointment of members afresh. On 16.09.2000, the
Gurudwara committee organised a program for sangrand, when the
respondents-accused forcibly took to the stage and announced themselves to be
nominated members of the local committee for the upcoming tenure. In
exercise of their political influence, the accused lodged FIR No. 160 dated
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035445
2024:PHHC:035445
18.09.2000 at Police Station Tanda, alleging theft of Rs. 15000/- from the cash
box of the Gurudwara wherein the petitioner-complainant was also challaned.
The petitioner worked at the Punjab School Education Board and was falsely
implicated to malign his service career and defame his family, merely because
he was the son of the then President of the Gurudwara Committee.
3. The complainant examined 03 witnesses to prove its case.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he
alleged false implication and examined 3 witnesses in their defence. After
assessing all material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted
Manjit Singh and Jasbir Singh, while acquitting Harbhajan Singh, vide
judgment dated 12.01.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an
appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which was allowed vide
judgment dated 08.05.2019 and the respondents-accused were acquitted of the
notice of accusation served upon them.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after
perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that the
petitioner-complainant alleges defamation on the grounds that he was booked
in a false FIR bearing No. 160 dated 18.09.2000, filed on the allegations of
trespass and theft from the cash box of the Gurudwara. The alleged offence is
defined under Section 499 of the IPC which reads as follows:
"Section 499. Defamation
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or
by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such
imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person."
5. In view of the above-mentioned provision, the intention to cause
harm is a necessary ingredient of the offence of defamation. Neither CW1-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035445
2024:PHHC:035445
Jawinder Singh nor CW3- Chanan Singh have testified that the allegations had
lowered their opinion of the petitioner-complianant. Furthermore, the petitioner
filed the complaint (supra) on 29.09.2008, after about 8 years of registration of
the FIR. In the FIR case itself, the petitioner-complainant was acquitted on the
ground that he retained the control of as well as possession over the
Gurudwara, therefore, he could not have committed the offence of theft. As
such, the petitioner-complainant has failed to make out the ingredients of the
offence as enshrined under Section 499 of the IPC.
6. 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 passed 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.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or
illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court or leaned lower
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035445
2024:PHHC:035445
Appellate Court which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 06, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035445
4 of 4
