Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001284
225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-769-MA-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.01.2025
SURESH KUMAR
...Applicant-Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for
Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present application is preferred under Section 378(3) of
the Cr.P.C. read with Section 14-A and 15-A of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the judgment
of acquittal dated 08.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurukshetra in case bearing FIR No. 35 dated 22.05.2016 under Sections
148, 149, 323, 341 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) {za (B)} of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
registered at Police Station Jhansa.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2016,
Inspector/SHO Nirmal Kumar alongwith other police officials was present
at Salpani chowk, where he received V. T. message from Control Room,
Kurukshetra that some persons of Rajput community had stopped the
function of Gurchari of Balmiki community and an altercation had taken
place between them, on which Inspector/SHO Nirmal Kumar alongwith
other police official reached Bus stand of village Bhustala and saw that
many persons had gathered there and the situation was very critical. Suresh
Kumar complainant moved application to Inspector/SHO Nirmal Kumar
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001284
CRM-A-769-MA-2018 (O&M) -2-
alleging therein that on 21.05.2016 there was marriage of his son Sandeep.
They were going to the temple of Balmiki in their village to pay obeisance,
when some boys of Rajput community quarrelled with them and called him
Chura and ashamed their community. 50-60 Rajputs i.e. Shankar, Kuldeep,
Roopa, Bablu, Kaptan, Sachin, Joni, Charan, Mohit, Jassi, Tarsem, Vikram,
Jagbir, Pappu, Suku, Sonu, Parmod, Mahul, Aman and Raju came with
lathis, dandas, gandasis and attacked them and abused them. He prayed
that action be taken against all the above said persons.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after
perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that
learned Court below has opined that occurrence was said to be of
21.05.2016 and the accused persons were arrested on 24.05.2016,
26.05.2016 and 28.05.2016. The star witnesses of the prosecution were the
police officials who have not uttered even a single word about the time of
information received by them and if the occurrence had taken place at
08.00 pm while the complaint was taken at 01.00 am from the complainant.
As per the statement of the complainant, the announcement was made in
both the temples of the village that complainant's son should not ride a
horse in his marriage ceremony but there is no such evidence or mention in
the complaint or in the testimony of any of the witnesses with regard to the
said announcement. The Pujari of any of the temples have also not been
made witness by the prosecution to prove as to who made the
announcement or whether any such announcement was made in this regard
or not. There was no videography or photographs taken by the police or by
the complainant party to corroborate their oral version with regard to
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001284
CRM-A-769-MA-2018 (O&M) -3-
identification of the accused to be present at the spot as there was different
versions of the witnesses of the prosecution with regard to presence of the
accused after the arrival of the police at the spot. Thus, it was opined that
prosecution had failed to establish the presence of all the accused at the
spot and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the common
object of the members of the assembly regarding Sections 148 and 149 of
Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC
the prosecution was required to prove the same by cogent and reliable
evidence. There was no medical evidence to prove the injuries, if any,
suffered by the complainant, any of the family members or the investigating
officer. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the identification of the
accused persons. Moreover, no evidence was found regarding recovery of
any stones, lathies or any deadly weapons from the possession of the
accused persons and as the case of the prosecution was found to be
doubtful, thus the ingredients of the offences under Section 3(1) {za (B)}
of SC/ST Act have to be proved and when the prosecution has failed to
prove the ingredients required to prove this offence, no offence punishable
under under Section 3(1) {za (B)} of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out
against the accused persons.
4. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001284
CRM-A-769-MA-2018 (O&M) -4-
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.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
finds that learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out
any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial 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.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
08.01.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
