Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042090
2024:PHHC:042090
CRR-2925-2019 1
242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2925-2019
Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
Balbir Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ankit Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition is preferred against judgment dated
25.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby
appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 08.12.2017 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Payal in FIR No. 164 dated 07.06.2011 registered under
Section 420 of the IPC at Police Station Payal, was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent no.2-accused Tarlok Singh
agreed to sell his land measuring 17 kanal 17 marlas situated at village Chomon to
the petitioner-complainant vide agreement dated 28.01.1997. He had agreed to
execute and register the said deed in favour of the petitioner on or before
28.01.1998 but failed to do the same. The disputed property was mortgaged with
Bank of India and one Megh Singh. The petitioner filed a civil suit for specific
performance which was decided vide judgement and decree dated 18.01.2002
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna. The
petitioner deposited Rs. 70,000/- in the treasury and Megh Singh further assigned
his mortgage rights in favour of Teja Singh vide sale deed dated 05.04.2002.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Payal
for redemption of the property while respondent no. 2 also filed an appeal in the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042090
2024:PHHC:042090
Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana. In connivance with each other,
respondent no. 2 and Tarlok Singh got the petitioner to execute a pronote of Rs.
6,00,000/- and thereafter, executed a sale agreement in favour of Kharak Singh
and Manjit Singh.
3. On assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial
Court acquitted respondent no.2-accused vide judgment dated 08.12.2017.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-complainant preferred an appeal before the
learned lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
25.07.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had
been appearing before the learned trial Court and was examined. However, his
cross-examination was only partly conducted and learned counsel for the accused
sought adjournment on the grounds that fresh summons were required to be issued
through SSP, Khanna to official witnesses. Due to paucity of time, the cross-
examination of the petitioner could not be completed and on 08.12.2017, the
prosecution evidence was closed when the petitioner could not appear due to a
death in the family.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing
the record with his able assistance, it transpires that the prosecution has only
examined one witness- PW1-Balbir Singh, the petitioner, to establish its case, who
has deposed that respondent no.2 had entered into a sale agreement with him qua
17 kanla 17 marlas of land on 28.01.10997 and the date of execution was fixed for
28.01.1997, which was not done. However, admittedly, the petitioner was not
cross-examined when he appeared as PW1, as such, his testimony cannot be read
into evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the prosecution
case beyond reasonable doubt.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042090
2024:PHHC:042090
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 the learned lower
Appellate 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.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
19.03.2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
