Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005357
CRM-A-2340-2019 (O&M) -1-
246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-2340-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.01.2025
JAGMAL SINGH
...Applicant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rahul Vijay Singh Chugh, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Rinky Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 9.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present application is preferred under Section 378(4) of
the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.09.2019 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa in complaint bearing
No. 85 dated 28.07.2016 filed under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341, 379-B, 34
of IPC at Police Station City Mansa.
2. Brief factual matrix of the present complaint is that
complainant was resident of ward No.1 near D.C. residence, T-point Mansa
and was doing work of committee of cash amount. Makhan Ram resident of
Tnuthian wali road Mansa had also started a committee with him. On
26.05.2016 when complainant went to Makhan Ram for collection of
installment of his committee at Thuthian Wali Road Mansa, all the accused
persons i.e. respondents No. 2 to 9 herein, were already present there.
Complainant was talking with Makhan Ram while sitting outside the Jhugi
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005357
CRM-A-2340-2019 (O&M) -2-
of Makhan Ram. All the accused with common intention started abusing
complainant. Respondent No. 9-Gango Devi gave brick blow towards
complainant and complainant saved himself. In the meantime, all the
accused started beating complainant with kicks and fists. Resultantly,
complainant fell down and accused gave kick blows to complainant.
Respondents No. 7,8 and 9 gave beatings on back of complainant with
bricks. Respondent No. 4 snatched Rs.3000/- from pocket of shirt worn by
complainant. Respondent No. 4 snatched mobile phone of complainant
from pocket of his pant. Complainant raised alarm 'Marta-Marta'
responding to which Jeev Raj, Gopy Ram, Raju and other people gathered
at the spot who saved the complainant and accused fled away from the spot
by threatening complainant to kill. Jeev Raj took the complainant to his
house. Next day, due to injuries on his back, complainant alongwith Jeev
Raj went to Civil Hospital Mansa, where he was admitted and he got his
injuries X-rayed and obtained treatment. He remained admitted there from
27.05.2016 to 02.06.2016. His statement was also recorded by the police in
Civil Hospital Mansa and he was assured by the police for action against
accused persons. After his discharge from hospital, complainant visited the
police station City II Mansa and on inquiry he came to know that police had
discharged other accused persons and instituted a Kalendra only against
respondents No. 2 to 4, on which complainant moved application before
SDM Mansa for taking action against remaining accused and the same
application was sent to police station City II Mansa but police did not take
any action and refused to do so. Hence the present complaint.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005357
CRM-A-2340-2019 (O&M) -3-
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 the present complaint has been
preferred with the averments that the accused persons inflicted injuries on
the person of complainant-Jagmal Singh, when he had gone to collect kitty
money. But a strong dent has been created in this case when the evidence is
read in totality as witness Gopi Ram in cross-examination stated that
Jagmal had not sustained any injury and he was not taken to the hospital.
He further submitted that Jagmal Singh told him that accused snatched Rs.
3,000/- from him and no such occurrence took place in his presence. Ram
Singh Security Guard stated that accused caused injuries on the
complainant by means of bricks and kick blows and even snatched his
mobile phone and cash amount. But during his cross-examination, he stated
that complainant was not taken to hospital by him or in his presence. He
further stated that he was not known to accused persons previously. Thus,
both the witnesses totally refuted the version of the complainant qua him
being hospitalized after the occurrence. Though, the complainant tendered
into evidence the medical record, but the said documentary evidence has
not been proved by examining the medical witness. Thus the version of the
complainant qua sustaining injuries came under a strong shadow of doubt.
Thus, after taking into consideration all the evidence available on record,
learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the
complainant-Jagmal Singh.
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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005357
CRM-A-2340-2019 (O&M) -4-
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
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)
15.01.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
