Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hori Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040306
CRR-586-2017 -1- 2024:PHHC:040306
240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-586-2017
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Hori Lal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for respondent no. 2 and 3
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The present revision petition is preferred against judgment dated
24.10.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby
appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2015 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad in the case stemming from FIR, bearing
no. 430 dated 02.11.2010 registered under Sections 323, 325, and 34 of the IPC
at Police Station Mujessar, District Faridabad, was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 30.10.2010 at around 12:30 p.m., the
petitioner-complainant was setting up a tent next to his house in order to
accommodate the guests that were going to come to attend his grandson's
naming ceremony. However, respondent no. 2-accused, namely, Chander Pal
objected to this. The alleged dispute escalated and respondent no. 2 caught hold
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040306
CRR-586-2017 -2- 2024:PHHC:040306
of the petitioner. In the meantime, respondent no. 3, namely, Gautam, who is the
son of respondent no. 2-accused, arrived at the spot and struck the petitioner
with a brick on his forehead and on the backside of his head. Respondent no. 4,
namely, Rakeshwati also assaulted the petitioner with her slippers. Upon
hearing the petitioner's cries for help, the complainant's son, Ajay Vyas came to
the spot of the occurrence and managed to rescue the petitioner. The FIR was
registered on the basis of the statement of the complainant on 02.11.2010. After
completion of the investigation, challan was presented against respondent no. 3
to 4 to face trial under Sections 323, 325, and 34 of the IPC.
3. After assessing all material on record, the learned Trial Court
acquitted respondent no. 2 to 4 vide judgement dated 05.01.2015. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate
Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.10.2016.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able assistance, it appears that there is nothing
in the judgements of the courts below to indicate perversity or misreading of
evidence in the judgement of acquittal. It is important to mention that there is
only one eye witness in the present case i.e., the petitioner-complainant. A
perusal of his testimony as PW-1 reveals that he imputed blame on one
Ravinder for inflicting grievous injuries on his head. However, there is no
accused who goes by the name of Ravinder. In fact, in his examination-of-chief,
no allegations were made against Gautam, who is the son of respondent no. 2
and 4. This lack of certainty regarding the identity of the accused makes the
prosecution case fragile and fails to inspire confidence. Moreover, apart from
the deposition of the petitioner, which is riddled with inconsistencies, and the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040306
CRR-586-2017 -3- 2024:PHHC:040306
medical report of the petitioner, there is no other corroborating evidence placed
on record by the prosecution. PW-2, Ajay Vyas, who allegedly came to the
petitioner's rescue has stated in his testimony that he was not present at the spot
when the alleged brawl took place and has categorically held that he did not
witness the alleged incident. Thus, he did not see as to who the assailant was.
7. Furthermore, as per the documents adduced by the respondents in
their defence, it is clear that the respondent-accused had earlier filed a criminal
complaint (Ex. D-3) against the petitioner-complainant. A long standing
animosity between the two parties can be inferred. The filing of the present FIR
was the petitioner's way of seeking vengeance cannot be ruled out. This
inference is further bolstered by the fact that no independent witness was
examined. This makes the prosecution case suspicious. Resultantly, the guilt of
the respondents-accused cannot be established beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt.
8. 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. (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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040306
CRR-586-2017 -4- 2024:PHHC:040306
of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial
Court.
9. 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 lower Appellate Court or the
learned Trial Court which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is
no merit in the present present revision petition and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
14.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
