4 July vs Jagdeep Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 727 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

4 July vs Jagdeep Singh on 4 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:5722
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
       Special Leave Application No. 158 of 2025
                                With
              Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2025
                          04 July, 2025



Mohd Tugaan alias Gufran Malik

                                                         --Appellant
                                Versus

Jagdeep Singh

                                                      --Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-
Mr. Faizan Ali, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Safdar,
learned counsel for the appellant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Special Leave to Criminal Appeal

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2025, passed by learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.39 of 2016, Mohammad Tugaann alias Gufran Malik vs. Jagdeep Singh, whereby the said court, at the end of trial, has acquitted the respondent accused for the charge of offence punishable under Sections 323, 420, 504 & 506 IPC.

2. In nutshell, the facts of the case, are that a complaint was lodged against the respondent-accused alleging therein that appellant/complainant lent

2025:UHC:5722 Rs.70,000/- in cash to the respondent-accused with a promise to make repayment within a month. After repeated delays, the respondent-accused issued a cheque Rs.64,800/- on 17.10.2014 which bounced on 21.10.2014 with the remark 'already passed'. Despite assurances, the respondent-accused never repaid the money. A legal notice sent on 07.11.2015 was not received. On 30.09.2015, when the complainant/appellant confronted the respondent- accused at his home, he became enraged, verbally abused, assaulted and threatened the complainant/appellant to kill.

3. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the complainant/appellant before the learned trial court. The complainant/appellant presented himself as CW-1 Mujaav Ahmed as CW-2 and Parvez as CW-3 for oral evidence. He also presented documentary evidence including the original cheque no.000757 amounting to Rs.64,800/- and the original receipt of the application submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar dated 30.11.2015 as his documentary evidence.

4. Thereafter, the statement of respondent- accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution version. Total 05 defence witnesses were examined by the respondent- accused in his defence. The trial court, at the conclusion of trial, did not find favour with the case of prosecution and accordingly, acquitted the respondent-accused for the charges leveled against him. Hence, complainant/ appellant has come up in this appeal along with application seeking leave.

5. The trial court acquitted the respondent- accused under Section 420 IPC as the complainant

2025:UHC:5722 failed to prove deception. Further, the complainant and their witnesses made contradictory statements in their testimonies. The complainant claimed to have given Rs.70,000/- in cash to the accused in their complaint and oral testimony, but there was no clear documentary or other evidence on record to substantiate this transaction.

6. The trial court acquitted the respondent- accused under Section 323 IPC primarily due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the complainant and witnesses as well as a lack of corroborating evidence regarding the alleged assault and injuries.

7. The trial court acquitted the respondent- accused under Section 504 IPC due to contradictions in the statements of CW1, CW2 & CW3. CW1 had stated in his complaint and his testimony that he along with CW2 and CW3 had gone to the house of accused, but CW2 stated in his cross-examination that he had gone there alone with the complainant. Regarding the incident, the complainant stated that the place of incident was inside the house of accused, but in his oral evidence, CW1 stated that the accused abused, assaulted and threatened to kill the complainant and CW2 and CW3 while sitting in the shop located inside the house of the accused. But, CW2 stated in his cross-examination that the accused came outside the house and committed the said incident. Therefore, in view of the statements of the above witnesses, the place of incident given by the accused on 30.09.2015 at 08:30 in the day time is doubtful. Thus, the trial court was of the opinion that there is a contradiction in the statement of complainant and the statements of witnesses CW1, CW2 and CW3.

2025:UHC:5722 The said witnesses stated that the accused abused, but there is no mention of the words used by the accused in the abuse. Thus, the trial court was in the opinion that merely saying that the accused started abusing and abusive words are being used, by merely using foul language is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC.

8. The trial court acquitted the accused- respondent under Section 506 IPC by stating that the most important witness was the complainant/victim, who testified that the accused threatened to kill him. However, ingredients of Section 506 IPC are made out when the accused must have the intention to carry out the threat with some action taken in furtherance of it. The trial court stated that statements made by the witnesses regarding the death threat were merely the use of words and not a real threat because there is no evidence on record to show that the accused took any action in furtherance of the threat.

9. Accordingly, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly acquitted the accused.

10. This Court is in full agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. Nothing substantial could be argued by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant so as to warrant any interference in the judgment passed by trial court. Accordingly, application seeking leave to appeal deserves to be rejected.

11. There is hardly any scope of interference. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is

2025:UHC:5722 rejected.

Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2025

12. Since this Court has declined to grant leave accordingly, this Government Appeal is also dismissed at the threshold itself.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.07.2025 AK