MEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal revision has been directed against the judgment dated 05.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner -complainant, Mehar Singh, challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, dated 26.09.2011 was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner -complainant Mehar Singh presented complaint (Ex. PA) with the Incharge, Police Post, Model Town, Patiala, with the allegations that he had sold 42.35 square yards of land and 200 square yards of the roof area to his step brother, Surinder Pal Singh, and the remaining plot remained in possession with the petitioner -complainant and his wife. It was further alleged that Surinder Pal Singh (respondent No. 2) along with his sons, namely, Ramandeep Singh and Mandeep Singh (respondent Nos. 3 and 4), illegally entered into the property owned and possessed by the petitioner/complainant and started raising construction. The petitioner/complainant called his other brothers who persuaded respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to stop the construction but after some time, they (respondent Nos. 2 to 4) again started raising the construction. When the petitioner/complainant objected to the illegal activities of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 then they threatened to kill the petitioner/complainant. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner/complainant, F.I.R. No. 412 dated 21.11.2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 448, 451, 457 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala. After completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were charged -sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 448, 457 and 506, IPC. In order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution examined Mehar Singh, complainant/petitioner as PW 1; Parwinder Singh as PW -2; ASI Jarnail Singh as PW -3; Amandeep Singh as PW -4; Narinder Pal Singh as PW -5; Gurdeep Singh as PW -6; Gurmeet Singh as PW -7; and Pushpinder Kaur as PW -8. Even after affording numerous opportunities, the prosecution could not complete its evidence, therefore, finding no other way, the learned trial court had closed the evidence of the prosecution by its order. The statements of the accused, in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. No evidence in defence was led. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vide its judgment dated 26.09.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment of acquittal, the petitioner/complainant filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and that too was dismissed on 05.10.2012 and hence, the orders of both the courts below have been challenged before this Court by way of the present criminal revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have failed to consider the fact that civil litigation which was going on between the parties had not attained the finality and on the basis of the said order, it could not be presumed that the petitioner/complainant was not in exclusive possession of the disputed land; that from the evidence produced by the prosecution, it was well proved that the respondents/accused committed the offences for which they were charged; that the wrong appreciation of the evidence by the courts below has caused serious prejudice to the complainant/petitioner and as such, both the judgments are liable to be set aside.

(3.) IT is by now settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened from the judgment of an acquittal. Here not only the trial court acquitted the respondents/accused but the said judgment of acquittal has also been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, therefore, the presumption of innocence of the respondent/accused has got more strength from the two judgments of acquittal. The concurrent findings of the learned two courts below are consistent that the petitioner/complainant had sold a portion of land measuring 42.35 square yards and a portion of his roof measuring 200 square yards in favour of his step brother Surinder Pal Singh (respondent No. 2) in this petition. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the disputed portion, on which the construction was being raised, was in exclusive possession of the petitioner/complainant. It is also consistent findings of both the courts below that the prosecution has even failed to substantiate that there was a theft of the property belonging to the complainant. Both the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and correctly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the charges levelled against the respondents/accused.