[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 2 April, 2026
CRM-A-87-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
208 CRM-A-87-2021
Date of decision : 02.04.2026
Sukhdeep Rani
... Appellant
VERSUS
Charanjit Singh and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate
for the respondents.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The instant application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for grant of leave to appeal for challenging the impugned judgment
dated 28.01.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby respondents were acquitted
in complaint case No.59 dated 07.11.2015 under Section 354 & 452 read
with Section 149 of IPC.
2. Brief factual matrix of the case at hand is that FIR was lodged
on the statement made by the prosecutrix, that on 19.11.2014 at about 08:00
a.m., the respondents armed with weapons, allegedly trespassed into the
house of the prosecutrix after demolishing a portion of the wall. Thereafter,
respondent No. 2 caught hold of the prosecutrix, manhandled her, and
extended threats, while Respondent No. 1 made inappropriate advances.
Furthermore, the co-accused Harman Singh assaulted the prosecutrix,
snatched her dupatta and tore her clothes, thereby outraging her modesty.
RITIKA The complainant was ultimately rescued by her relatives who arrived at the
spot. Subsequently to the registration of the FIR, investigation in the case
was carried out, and the trial commenced. After taking into consideration the
entire material on record, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents under
Sections 354, 452 read with Section 149 of IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal,
under the said provision, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the
respondents unlawfully and forcibly trespassed into the house of the
appellant-complainant and, thereafter outraged her modesty by tearing her
clothes. It is further contended that, as per the Medico-Legal Report (MLR),
two injuries were found on the person of the complainant. Yet, despite
specific allegations and corroborative evidence on record, the trial Court has
committed a grave error in reaching the conclusion that mere trespassing
does not prima facie mean that the case under Sections 354, 452 read with
Section 149 of IPC is made out. Thus, the acquittal of respondents under the
said charge needs to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that
allegations made against the respondents in the FIR as well as statements
brought on the record were vague and general, and did not constitute an
offence under Sections 354, 452 read with Section 149 of IPC, given that the
basic ingredients of the said offences were absolutely lacking. It was thus
that respondents were acquitted by the trial Court after due appreciation of
the facts and evidence on record.
5. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsels and
perused the judicial file.
6. Reverting to the case at hand, it was observed by the learned
trial Court that despite the alleged occurrence having taken place on
28.01.2015, the complaint before the learned JMIC concerned was filed only
on 07.11.2015. The explanation about the same advanced by the
complainant, that she had got her statement recorded and even moved an
application before the investigating agency, in the absence of any proof of
the same, was untenable with respect to the allegations, it was observed that
not only had the complainant failed to prove her possession over the alleged
place of occurrence, but had also failed to get examined material witnesses
who had purportedly rescued her from the clutches of the accused persons.
The material improvements with respect to weapons of offence made in her
examination as a complainant witness were also noted. It was thereupon,
finding insufficient evidence on record against the private respondents, that
the learned trial Court proceeded to acquit them of all charges.
7. Following the observations made by its Constitutional Bench in
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405, the Supreme
Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of UP (2008) 10 SCC 450 elaborated as to
when an order of acquittal by the trial Court can be disturbed, by holding
thus:
"69. The following principles emerge from cases
1. The Appellate Court may review the evidence in
appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing
evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the
entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's
conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was before
the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given
to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a
witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High
Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also
be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial
court was wrong.
70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate
courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by
number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court
would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to
discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and
compelling reasons" exist when:
i. The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong;
ii. The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous
view of law;
iii. The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave
miscarriage of justice";
iv. The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with
the evidence was patently illegal;
v. The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
vi. The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread
the material evidence or has ignored material documents like
dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii. This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and
consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to
acquittal, the other to conviction-the High Courts/ Appellate
Courts must rule in favour of the accused."
8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that in the case at hand, there is no infirmity or
irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2020 whereby learned
Trial Court has acquitted respondents under Sections 354, 452 read with
Section 149 of IPC. The same being speaking, well reasoned and based upon
correct appreciation of facts, applicable law & judicial precedents, needs no
interference. As a corollary, the leave to appeal is declined.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
02.04.2026
Ritika
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
