Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008754
280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM
CRM-41823-2023 in/and
CRR-2241-2023 (O & M)
Date of decision: 21.01.2025
AJINDER SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Arshdeep, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
CRM-41823-2023
Present application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation
Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 523 days in filing the present
revision petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed.
Delay of 523 days in filing the revision petition is hereby
condoned.
MAIN CASE
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 19.10.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magi
Magistrate
strate Ist Class,
Jalalabad as well as impugned judgment dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby respondent Nos.2 to 5 have been
acquitted by both the Courts below.
2. The prosecution version is that on 27.12.2012, ASI Ranjit Singh
alongwith the police officials was on patrolling in the area of village Dharmu
Wala, the complainant got recorded his statement to the effect that he is
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008754
CRM-41823-2023
CRR-2241-2023
2023 (O & M)
resident of village Mastu Wala, PS Sadar Jalalalabd and presently working as a
Gunman to the DC, Ferozepur. He has stated that he is owing land measuring
40 kanals 7 marlas in the village Jodha Bhani, Dakhli Fattu Wala, out of
which, 35 kanals has been inherited from his father namely Balwant Singh and
land measuring 5 kanals 7 marla in Rect.
Rect. no.32, Killa no.7/2(2
no.7/2(2-13), 14 min(2--
14) has been purchased from Balbir Singh and Gurdeep Singh sons of Bahal
Singh, resident of village Fattu Wala in the year 2009 and possession was
delivered to him at the spot. On 15.11.2012, the land measuring 40 kanals, 7
marlas was given on lease to Harpal Singh son of Shamsher Singh for six
months and they have cultivated the wheat crop in the land. It is stated that on
24.11.2012, servant of Harpal Singh informed him on telephone that Puran
Singh son of Jattu Singh
Singh (respondent No.1 herein) has damaged the wheat crop,
after moving the tractor in the field, along with cultivator. On this, complainant
along with his brother Kartar Singh went to spot around 8:00 PM, then Ranjit
Singh son of Puran Singh (respondent No.3 herein) armed with dang,, Waziran
Bai wife of Puran Singh (respondent No.4 herein) armed with dang,, Piara
Singh son of Bahadur Singh (respondent No.5 herein) were making Vatt in his
land and accused/respondent
accused No.2 Puran Singh was ploughing the wheat crop
sown in Rect. No.32, Killa no.7/2(2-13),
no.7/2(2 13), 14 min(2
min(2-14).
14). When his brother
Kartar Singh and Jaswant Singh came forward to stop them, tthen
hen all the
accused persons raised the lalkara for getting hold upon them and givin
givingg the
lesson. Under the threat, they moved on back foot and all the accused
destroyed their wheat crop. The motive behind the occurrence was that accused
Puran Singh is alleging that he has an agreement to sell in his favour regarding
the land and he has also
also filed a suit for getting the sale deed executed.. It is
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008754
CRM-41823-2023
CRR-2241-2023
2023 (O & M)
stated that accused Puran Singh along with other persons wanted to take
possession of the suit land. On this information, FIR ((supra)) was got
registered.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for tthe parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that at the time,
when occurrence took place, the land in dispute was not in possession of the
petitioner, as he leased out the same to one Harpal Singh along w
with
ith the land
inherited from his father. Further, Harpal Singh never made any complaint qua
the entry of the accused in the land in dispute. Even, he has not been cited as
witness of the prosecution and the investigating officer also not recorded his
statement. Furthermore, there is a delay of more than one month in lodging the
FIR (supra),, the reason of which has been explained that there was a talk for
the compromise among the panchayat,, however, no person from panchayat has
been examined to explain the delay. As such, only vague allegations have been
levelled against the private respondents and the prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond the reasonable shadow of doubt.
4. The power of the Appellate Court to uns
unsettle
ettle the order of acquittal
on the basis of re-appreciation
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 prev
prevail
ail
over the other pointing towards his guilt. (See
(See H.D. Sundara and others vs.
State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023;
Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs.
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
A
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008754
CRM-41823-2023
CRR-2241-2023
2023 (O & M)
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 tri
trial Court.
5. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds that learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in
findings recorded by the learned Courts
Court below, which warrants any
interference. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
January 21, 2025 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
