High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sajjan Singh v. Subhash & Ors - CRM-386-MA-2006  RD-P&H 463 (16 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M.No.386-MA of 2006
Date of decision: 23.1.2007
Subhash and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA
Present Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the applicant.
This petition has been filed for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents of the charges under sections 148/323/506/149 IPC.
Case of the complainant is that on 13.6.1995 at 5 AM, the complainant and his wife were going to their 'Bara' to see their cattle and they met accused Chiriya and Raj Kumar. They caught hold of wife of the complainant and tried to take her inside the house of Balraj. Accused Subhash armed with 'gandasi', Sunder, Leeladhar and Lakhmiri armed with 'lathis' came there and attacked him. Wife of the complainant made hue and cry, on which his son Balbir Singh reached there. He was over-powered by Subhash, who gave a 'lathi' blow on his right arm. Sunder gave a 'lathi' blow on the left hand of the complainant. Leeladhar and Lakhmiri also caused 'lathi' blows. Phool Singh, brother of the complainant and Mohinder Singh, nephew of the complainant came to the spot and rescued them. They were medically examined.
Defence of the accused is that complainant party was the aggressor and had caused injuries to the accused persons for which Crl.M.No.386-MA of 2006 2
proceedings were pending against the complainant party.
The accused examined Dr. Daya Nand, DW1, who had medically examined Lakhmiri, respondent No.4 on 30.6.1995 and found 11 injuries, out of which, injury Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were with sharp-edged weapon. Injury Nos. 4 and 8 were grievous. He also found nine injuries on the person of Leeladhar, respondent No.3, out of which, injury Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 9 were by sharp-edged weapon and injury No.2 was grievous.
The trial court, after considering the evidence, rejected the version of the complainant. From the nature of injuries on Leeladhar and Lakhmiri, it was inferred that the complainant party was the aggressor and the complaint was a counter blast to the proceedings pending against the complainant.
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the findings recorded by the trial court.
The findings recorded are not shown, in any manner, to be unreasonable or perverse so as to call for interference with the order of acquittal.
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.386-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 23, 2007 Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.