Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Pal Kaur v. Balwinder Singh & Ors - CRM-636-MA-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 467 (16 January 2007)

Crl.M.No.636-MA of 2006 1


Crl.M-.No.636-MA of 2006

Date of decision: 22.1.2007

Pal Kaur



Balwinder Singh and others



Present : Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.


This petition has been filed for leave to appeal to challenge acquittal of the respondents under sections 341/354/506/34 IPC.

Case of the petitioner-complainant is that the respondents accused, who are police officials, came to the house of the complainant on 1.1.2001 at 6 PM and asked her daughters about the petitioner. The said daughters replied that their mother was in the hospital. The accused again came at 12 midnight and knocked the door. The daughters did not open the door. The accused gave filthy abuses. On 2.1.2001 at 10 AM, the accused came on a scooter and dragged her daughter Akko. ASI Santokh Singh with bad intention made her sit on the scooter driven by Kewal Singh., brought her to police station and kept her in illegal confinement and tried to outrage her modesty and then registered a false case under the Excise Act. The police did not take any action and on the basis of representation to the Human Rights Commission, FIR was registered, which was cancelled and cancellation report was accepted by the Court.

The complainant appeared as PW-1 and examined PW2 Jeeto and PW3 Akko.

The accused denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that the complainant was indulging in illicit liquor; several cases were Crl.M.No.636-MA of 2006 2

pending against her. On 2.1.2001, accused Akko was caught and a case under section 61 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act was registered against her.

The complaint was a counter-blast to the lawful acts of the police.

The trial court after considering the evidence held that case of the complainant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Relevant observations are as under:-

"So in these circumstances, in my opinion, when Akko, the daughter of complainant has been arrested by the police officials, who are accused in the present case in pursuance of the FIR No.5 dated 2.1.2001 under section 61(1)(c) of Punjab Excise Act, then there is no question of any illegal confinement of her in the police station.

Further there is no cogent and convincing evidence that any act was done by the accused to outrage her modesty.

If there was any such act on the part of the accused, then the complainant would be first person to get her daughter medically examined but there is no such medical evidence on the file also and further the facts also reveal that certain excise cases were pending against the complainant of the present case. So finding no cogent and convincing evidence on the file, in my opinion, the complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused. The accused stand acquitted."

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.

The finding recorded by the trial court cannot be held to be unreasonable or perverse. Even if two views are possible, interference with the order of acquittal is not 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): Crl.M.No.636-MA of 2006 3

"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)



January 22, 2007 Judge



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


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 |

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