Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuljas Rai vs Sunita Sharma And Others on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042035
CRM-A-1109-2023 1 2024:PHHC:042035
236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1109-2023 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
Kuljas Rai ...Applicant-Appellant
Versus
Sunita Sharma and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
***
Present: - Mr. Ankit Kharbanda, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
CRM-33139-2023
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1961 seeking condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the application
under Section 378 Cr.P.C.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay of 93 days in filing the said application is condoned.
CRM-A-1109-2023
1. The present application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
is preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2023 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur in Complaint No.
COMI/125/2015 dated 30.05.2015 filed under Sections
452,307,323,379,506,427,34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'IPC').
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 20.06.2014, respondent-accused
Abhimanu Sharma called the applicant-complainant and threatened to kill
him and his mother. Thereafter, on 21. 06.2014, the applicant moved a
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042035
CRM-A-1109-2023 2 2024:PHHC:042035
complaint before SSP, Gurdaspur. On 22.06.2014, the respondents-
accused came to the applicant's house along with ASI Ranjit Singh and
one Head Constable. The accused hurled abuses at the applicant-
complainant and started breaking things in his house. The police
personnels informed the accused that the applicant has already moved an
application before SSP, Gurdaspur, after which the police and the accused
went away. The applicant informed SI Kulwinder Singh of Police Station
Dhariwal of the incident. When the applicant and his mother returned
from the police station, the respondents-accused forcibly entered his
house. Respondent-Abhimanu was carrying a pistol, respondent-Puneet
was carrying 15-20 feel of rope and one cycle tube while the other
respondents-accused were unarmed. Abhimanu asked the applicant to
hand over the keys to the house and the almirah on gunpoint and enquired
where the cash and gold were kept. Respondent-Sunita handed the
applicant a blank paper and told him to write that him and his mother
were dying by suicide. When the applicant refused to do the same, Puneet
put a rope around the neck of the applicant and the respondents-Narinder
and Sanjeev started hitting him. Thereafter, they tried to hang the
applicant from the ceiling fan while respondent-Aarti videographed the
entire incident on her mobile phone.
3. Due to the injuries sustained, the applicant fell unconscious
and was awakened by the accused by sprinkling some water on his face.
Subsequently, the applicant raised alarm causing people to gather in the
street. The applicant was running towards the police station when the
accused caught up to him near the house of one Daljit Singh and gave him
beatings. Daljit Singh took the applicant to his house from where he
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042035
CRM-A-1109-2023 3 2024:PHHC:042035
informed the police about the incident. The police came and took the
applicant to the police station and thereafter Dhillon Hospital, Batala,
after which he was dropped back to his house. The applicant found the
accused giving beatings to his mother at his house. Respondents-Sunita,
Puneet and Aarti broke the almirahs of his house and took Rs. 80,000/-,
sale deed, fixed deposit, passbook, 22 tolas of gold, five suitcases and
many other expensive items. On the basis of material available on record,
the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused vide judgment
dated 07.12.2015.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant
and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that the
house of the applicant is in the name of his wife respondent-Sunita. CW2-
Rajinder Kumar and CW3-Deepak have categorically mentioned that the
respondents-accused used to visit the house of the applicant commonly.
CW2-Rajinder Kumar is the nephew of the complainant, making him an
interested witness. However, even if that were to be ignored, his testimony
does not strengthen the case of the prosecution as the complaint itself is
unreliable. In his cross-examination, CW3-Deepak has stated that he was
in the street for 4/5 hours which is rather astounding that one would be at
the spot for such a long duration and not even attempt was made to save
his friend. He has also stated that the respondents accused were unarmed
while respondent-Abhimanu was allegedly wielding a pistol. He also
stated that respondent-Sunita was not present on the spot which is also in
contravention of the prosecution case. It was Daljit Singh who saved him
and took him to the hospital, CW3 was not mentioned in the narrative by
the applicant and Daljit Singh himself has not been examined as a witness.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042035
CRM-A-1109-2023 4 2024:PHHC:042035
5. Furthermore, the application dated 21.06.2014 moved
before SSP, Gurdaspur naturally do not contain details of the subsequent
events of 22.06.2014. However, the applicant stated to have met the SSP
on 23.06.2014 and it remains unexplained as to why he did not submit an
application with regard to the alleged incident. Moreover, the
complaint(supra) was instituted on 30.05.2015, after a suspiciously long
time. The applicant has also failed to examine any witnesses to prove
inaction on the part of the police authorities. The incident allegedly took
place in the house of the applicant, located in a populated area, however,
no independent witnesses have been examined.
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. (See
H.D. Sundara and others Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal
application 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 applicant has failed to point out
any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042035
CRM-A-1109-2023 5 2024:PHHC:042035
which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the
present present petition and leave to application is denied.
20.03.2024 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
manisha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
