Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs Rupaljit Kaur on 2 September, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
267
CRM-A-1996-MA-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 2nd, 2024
Kuldeep Singh
.....Applicant
Versus
Rupaljit Kaur
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Harkirat Singh Randhawa, Advocate
for the applicant.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
CRM-35185-2016
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of
201 days in filing the application for leave to appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
Delay of 201 days in filing the application for leave to
appeal stands condoned.
CRM-A-1996-MA-2016
Applicant is impugning the judgment dated 05.02.2016
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Rajpura, whereby
respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges framed against
her in complaint bearing No.COMI/661/2013 dated 04.10.2010 titled as
'Kuldeep Singh Versus Charanjit Singh and another' under Sections
452/447/427/34 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the trial
Court vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2016 erred in acquitting the
CRM-A-1996-MA-2016 (O&M) -2-
respondent of the charges framed against her under Sections 447/427/34 of
the IPC. Learned counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to the
allegations levelled, has submitted that the case arose from a complaint
lodged by the applicant; on 09.03.2010, at about 3:00 PM, Charanjit Singh
(now deceased) and his daughter-in-law Rupaljit Kaur (respondent-
accused) began demolishing a 30 year old wall belonging to the applicant.
Charanjit Singh used crowbar to demolish the wall, while respondent-
Rupaljit Kaur assisted by catching and throwing bricks to her side. It was
also alleged that this was not the first instance of such attempts by the
accused to demolish the wall. Despite multiple visits to the Police Station
and repeated complaints, the authorities took minimal action, registering
only a DDR No.13 on 15.03.2010. In the light of the inaction, the applicant
was then compelled to initiate criminal proceedings under Sections
452/447/427/34 of the IPC. However, the respondents were only
summoned to face trial under Sections 447/427/34 of the IPC, and notices
of accusation were duly served.
3. Learned counsel has further argued that the trial Court had
erred in concluding that the applicant had failed to establish the essential
elements of criminal trespass under Section 447 of the IPC. It has further
been argued that in the impugned judgment, the trial Court had relied on
the applicant's admission during his cross-examination that the Panchayat
had filed a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') regarding the land on
which the wall stood. Learned counsel contends that merely filing a
petition does not negate the applicant's possession of the land. Moreover,
CRM-A-1996-MA-2016 (O&M) -3-
the trial Court disregarded material evidence, particularly the order of the
Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala
(Exhibit P-6), and the order of this Court in CRM-M No.23605 of 2012
(Exhibit P-7). Both these documents clearly show that the case of the
Panchayat under Section 7 had been dismissed vide order dated
22.05.2013, affirming the possession of the applicant of the disputed land.
4. Learned counsel has in addition also submitted that the trial
Court had wrongly acquitted the respondents under Section 427 of the IPC
on technical grounds i.e. prosecution had failed to prove that the damage
caused exceeded `50/-. It was contended that the demolition of a long
standing wall would have inevitably resulted in damage surpassing this
amount of `50/-, which fact was ignored by the trial Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
relevant material on record.
6. Several critical inconsistencies and inadequacies in the
evidence presented by the applicant have come to light, which
undoubtedly undermine the case of the prosecution.
7. Firstly, while the applicant during his testimony as CW-1,
corroborated the allegations in the complaint, he also made an admission
during his cross-examination that proved to be detrimental to his case. The
applicant acknowledged that the Panchayat had previously filed a petition
under Section 7 of the Act concerning the very land, where the disputed
wall stood. The case preferred under Section 7 of the Act was decided in
favour of the Panchayat, which indicated that the applicant may not have
had legitimate possession of the land in question. This admission by the
CRM-A-1996-MA-2016 (O&M) -4-
applicant considerably weakened his claim of ownership and possession, a
key factor to prove criminal trespass under Section 447 of the IPC.
Furthermore, the applicant was unable to refute that the Panchayat was
declared the legal owner of the land, which further created a significant
doubt as to whether the respondents could be held liable for trespass on
property that may not have belonged to the applicant.
8. Secondly, the applicant's failure to call any witness to
substantiate his version of events, despite his own admission that the area,
where the wall stood, was densely populated further created dent. The
least that the applicant could have done was to present some independent
corroboration about the alleged demolition, especially given the purported
nature of the incident. The absence of corroborative testimony from
individuals, who might have witnessed the demolition, raises serious
questions about the veracity of the claims of the applicant.
9. Another significant omission pertains to the complaint of the
applicant. The applicant, claimed during his deposition, that the wall had
been demolished twice by the respondent, however, this crucial detail was
conspicuously not mentioned in the original complaint filed by the
applicant, which was a material inconsistency, undermining the credibility
of the account of events given out by the applicant.
10. Additionally, during cross-examination of the applicant, it
also emerged that the photographs of the place of occurrence i.e. the
demolished wall, were not taken contemporaneously. The son of the
applicant, who deposed as CW-3, who had taken the photographs, did not
have in his possession the mobile phone or the memory card used to
CRM-A-1996-MA-2016 (O&M) -5-
capture them, thereby rendering it impossible to authenticate the
photographs as per the Evidence Act.
11. Still further, the alleged occurrence took place on 09.03.2010.
However, the complaint was lodged only on 04.10.2010 i.e. nearly after
seven months. There was no plausible reason brought forth regarding this
abnormal delay. It needs to be pointed out that any inordinate delay in
lodging of the complaint, though not always fatal, but does raise doubts
about the genuineness of the allegations, and particularly in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.
12. Lastly, the applicant failed to prove his exclusive possession
of the disputed land, and was also not able to dispute that the Panchayat
had previously got a favourable verdict pertaining to the same land from a
Civil Court.
13. As a sequel to the above, this Court does not find any merit in
the instant application as evidently the evidence presented by the applicant
before the Court below was marred by inconsistencies, insufficient
corroboration and unexplained delays, all of which cumulatively
contributed to the acquittal of the respondent.
14. The application stands dismissed.
September 2nd, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
