High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Baljinder Singh v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors - CRM-31-MA-2006  RD-P&H 461 (16 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M-.No.31-MA of 2006
Date of decision: 22.1.2007
Gurpreet Singh and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA
Present : Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
This order will dispose of Crl.M.No.31-MA of 2006 and Crl.M.No.32-MA of 2006. Both the applications have been filed to challenge acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in Crl.M.No.31-MA of 2006 and respondent No.1 in Crl.M.No.32-MA of 2006, under sections 452/379/427/506/148 IPC.
Case of the complainant is that he was apprehending interference in possession of his property at the instance of Gurpreet Singh, who was son of the local MLA. He obtained stay from the court on 9.1.1999 which was confirmed on 8.2.1999. On 14.3.1999, accused tried to enter the property and removed 5000 bricks of the complainant. They also cut and stole five kikker trees and gave slaps and fist blows. The police did not take any action and, therefore, complaint was filed.
Complainant examined himself as CW1 and he also examined Joginder Singh, CW2, Kirpal Singh CW3 and Sucha Singh CW4.
The accused denied the allegation of the complainant and pleaded false implication.
After considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the accused persons but on appeal, conviction has been set aside.
Reasons for setting aside the acquittal are, inter-alia, as under:- Crl.M.No.31-MA of 2006 2
(i)The eye witnesses admitted that the property in dispute was panchayat property and was not allotted to the complainant.
(ii)Gurpreet Singh was Sarpanch of the village and had taken action against encroachment without any stay order having been produced.
(iii)Version given by the complainant was not reliable about demolition of wall, cutting of trees or removal of 5000 bricks.
(iv)The complainant was interested in grabbing the panchayat property.
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
We are unable to hold that the findings recorded in support of order of acquittal are unreasonable or perverse. Even if two views are possible, no interference with the order of acquittal is called for.
Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:- "21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 Cri LJ 1783)). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 AIR SCW 2438: AIR 1996 SC 2035 (1996 Cri LJ 2867): "While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions."
Crl.M.No.31-MA of 2006 3
In view of above, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.
The petition is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
January 22, 2007 Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.