Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaimal Singh vs Mohinder Singh And Others on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
230 CRM-A-277 of 2020
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
Jaimal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
Mohinder Singh and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Sikandh Mehta, Advocate for
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The applicant has filed the present application under
Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant special leave to appeal
against the judgment dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, whereby, the respondents have been
ordered to be acquitted in a complaint under Sections 452, 323, 148,
149, 427, 120-B and 506 of IPC, Police Station Rajpura.
2. As per the case of the applicant/complainant, at about
07.30 p.m. on 17.08.2010, the respondents/accused came on their
vehicles and were armed with deadly weapons, namely, Gandasis,
swords and ammunition and entered the house of the
applicant/complainant illegally, in his absence. They had locked the
wife of the applicant and his children in a room and had damaged
household articles inside the house. The applicant/complainant was
not at home at that time. The family members of the applicant raised
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -2-
alarm and Sitta Dass, Mangal Singh and Amar Nath etc., had reached
at the spot and on seeing them, the respondents fled from the spot
with their respective weapons. While leaving, they also extended
threats to the applicant. They also left one Bullet and one Hero Honda
motorcycles at the spot. After returning home, the applicant informed
the police but no action was taken on the complaint submitted by the
present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued
that in the present case, the eye witnesses Sitta Dass, Mangal and
Mohinder had fully supported the case of the prosecution. Even, there
was sufficient evidence on record, which clearly proved the
involvement of the respondents in the crime. However, the trial Court
was erred in appreciating the evidence in the present case and the
impugned judgment is unsustainable. Learned counsel further refers
to the testimonies of CW1 Surjit Singh @ Sitta Dass and CW2
Mohinder Singh, which were sufficient to establish the case of the
prosecution. Even the said witnesses had withstood the test of
cross-examination. Learned counsel further contends that the trial
Court had wrongly placed reliance on minor discrepancies and the
impugned judgment is legally unsustainable.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
perused the record.
5. In the present case, the prosecution had examined PW1
Surjit Singh Sita Dass, who deposed that on 17.8.2010 at about 7:30
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -3-
p.m., the accused Mohinder Singh, Lali, Jagga, Karnail Singh, Rinku,
Sita and Tehal Singh came at the spot with deadly weapons with their
vehicles i.e. Tata Indica Car, Alto Car and one Bullet Motor Cycle and
entered in the house of Jaimal Singh and they confined the
applicant/complainant's wife, and his children in a room and started
damaging the house hold articles. He further deposed that the accused
Mohinder Singh and Pape gave fist blows and slaps to the wife of the
complainant and also beaten up his children. They were calling the
complainant and his family members by bad names. The complainant
was not present at the time. He further deposed that after hearing the
hue and cry he along with Mangal Singh and Amar Nath reached at
the spot and had seen the incident. He further deposed that when they
tried to stop them, then all the accused persons ran away from the spot
along with their deadly weapons. The accused left one Indica Car and
Bullet Motor Cycle at the spot. PW2 Mohinder Singh is also the eye
witness of the occurrence question and supported the version of the
complaint and corroborated the statement of PWI Surjit Singh @ Sita
Dass. PW3 Bimla Devi is the wife of the complainant, who also
supported the version of the complaint and corroborated the statement
of the PW1. She deposed with regard to the injuries caused by the
accused persons to her and her children. She further deposed that the
matter was reported to the police station, but the police did not took
any action. PW4 Jaimal Singh is the complainant who reiterated the
entire averments of the complaint and deposed that the accused
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -4-
persons in his absence entered into his house and gave injuries to his
wife and children. He further deposed that he moved various
applications to the police authorities but all in vain. The witness
proved on record applications moved by him to the police authorities
Ex. PW4/A to Ex.PW4/C. PW5 Mangal Singh is the eye witness of
the occurrence in question who supported the version of the
complainant. PW6 Ravinder Singh, Assistant Reader, DSP Rajpura
proved on record copy of application dated 28.6.2011 moved by the
complainant as well as the report of SHO Sadar as Ex. CW6/A and
Ex. CW6/B. CW7 HC Jagat Singh proved on record copies of
applications dated 31.8.2010 and 07.09.2010 as Ex. PW7/A &
Ex. PW7/B and further proved the investigation report of the same as
Ex. PW7/C.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance
on the testimonies of PW1 Surjit Singh @ Sitta Dass, PW2 Mohinder
Singh wife of complainant, PW4 Jaimal Singh complainant and PW5
Mangal Singh. However, the trial Court had rightly observed that in
their examination-in-chief, the said witnesses tried to support the case
of the prosecution, but the falsehood exposed from their
cross-examination. In the present case, Jaimal Singh,
applicant/complainant appeared as PW4 and admittedly, he had not
witnessed the occurrence at all. Still further, the
applicant/complainant Jaimal Singh also not stated in his
cross-examination that 26 persons had come to his house at the time
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -5-
of the occurrence. However, at one place, he stated that 26 persons
had come whereas at other place, he stated that 15 persons had
attacked his family members. Still further, PW3 Bimla Devi admitted
that she had not reported the matter to the police. Apart from that,
CW3 Amar Nath and CW4 Mangal Dass had come after hearing the
hue and cry of the family members of the complainant and no reliance
could be placed on their testimonies.
7. Apart from that, one Bullet and one Hero Honda
motorcycle were left by the accused at the spot. First of all, no such
recovery was made from the spot by the police. Secondly, the accused
had left their respective vehicles and had fled from there; this clearly
shows that the accused were six in numbers and had to flee from the
spot. Apart from that, eye witnesses, who have been examined by the
applicant clearly stated that in their cross-examination that they had
not entered into the house of the applicant/complainant and had seen
the incident from the nearby street. Still further, the trial Court had
recorded the detailed reasons, while recording the judgment of
acquittal in the present case. I have perused the impugned judgment
passed by the trial Court and find no reason to deviate from the
findings recorded by the trial Court.
8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of "Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra",
2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2222; 2018 (5) RCR (Criminal) 228 as
follows:-
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -6-
"14. As the trial court and High Court, having
appreciated the evidence on record, has come to
diametrically opposite conclusions, mandating herein to
observe certain witness statements which may have an
important bearing in this case. In the processes of
appreciating the evidence at the appellate stage, we
need to keep in mind the views of this court as expressed
in Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987(2)
RCR (Criminal) 35 : 1987 CriLJ 974 -
"The High Court has not found in its judgment that the
reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for
discarding the testimony of PW2 and PW6 were either
unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has
done is to make an independent reappraisal of the
evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely
on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the
High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different
from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact
that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation
of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at
variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal
passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and
sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The
jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by
the limitation that no interference is to be made with the
order of acquittal unless the approach made by the
lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the
case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -7-
conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which
could not have been possibly arrived at by any court
acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore,
liable to be characterized as perverse. Where two views
are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in
the case and the court below has taken a view which is
plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally
interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the
opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its
consideration of the evidence is erroneous."
15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat,
1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 62 : 1996 CriLJ 2867, this
Court observed:
"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact
that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court
can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on
reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and
sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal
unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire
approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence
was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it
were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over
an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek
an answer to the question whether the findings of the
trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or
demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court
answers the above question in the negative the order of
acquittal is not to be disturbed."
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041615
CRM-A-277 of 2020 2024:PHHC:041615 -8-
9. From the above referred discussion and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that
the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on
sound reasons and there does not seem to be any illegality or
perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court.
10. Sequally, the application sans merit and is accordingly
ordered to be dismissed.
11. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
21.03.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
