Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GURDIT SINGH versus JUGRAJ SINGH & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gurdit Singh v. Jugraj Singh & Ors. - CRM-571-MA-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 465 (16 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Misc. No.60977 of 2006 &

Criminal Misc. No.571-MA of 2006

Date of decision: 23.01.2007

Gurdit Singh

-----Appellant.

Vs.

Jugraj Singh & others.

-----Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

Present: Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate

for the appellant.

-----

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

Delay condoned.

Heard on merits.

This petition has been filed for leave to appeal to challenge acquittal of respondents of the charges under Sections 307, 447, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC.

Case of the complainant is that on 12.05.1997 at 2-30 P.M., the complainant came to know that the accused were damaging the pillars and fencing in his land. He went there and also showed an order of stay dated 5.5.1997; the accused persons assaulted the complainant and his son with their respective weapons; they were rescued by the villagers; the accused persons ran away. Complainant and his son were medically examined; the matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken.

The complainant examined himself as PW-2 and his son Harjinder Singh as PW-3 and also led medical evidence.

Criminal Misc. No.571-MA of 2006

The accused persons denied the allegations and stated that they were owners of the land and the complainant wanted to take forcible possession of the same. Jugraj Singh and Karnail Singh, accused persons were in possession of the land and in exercise of their right of private defence of their person and of their property, they caused injuries to the complainant. Amarjit Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Suneet Inderpal Singh were not present at the time of occurrence. Amarjit Singh, accused was Deputy Director of Industries, Punjab Government and he was on official duty. The accused also produced several documents in support of their pleas.

The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, rejected the version of the complainant inter-alia for the following reasons:- (i) Complaint was filed after nine months of the alleged occurrence.

(ii) Jugraj Singh and Karnail Singh suffered injuries, which were not explained by the complainant and thus, the complainant concealed the true genesis of the occurrence.

(iii) Gurdit Singh and Harjinder Singh were accused in cross-case filed by the accused persons.

(iv) The complainant did not lead any evidence in support of his possession. Suit filed by the complainant had been dismissed for want of prosecution.

(v) The accused had shown evidence of their being co-sharers.

(vi) Presence of Gurvir Singh and Amarjit Singh was doubtful.

We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

We are of the view that the findings recorded by the trial Court are neither unreasonable nor perverse, so as to call for interference with the order of acquittal.

Pag

e

num

bers

Criminal Misc. No.571-MA of 2006

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." In view of above, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.

The petition is dismissed.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

January 23, 2007 ( H.S. BHALLA )

ashwani JUDGE

Pag

e

num

bers


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.