RANJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of a judgment dated 07.04.2008 passed in Complaint No. 82 dated 04.10.2001 filed under Sections 452/307/324/325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide impugned judgment, learned Judge has recorded acquittal of accused persons inter -alia on grounds: (1) that there are contradictions between ocular and medical evidence; (ii) that filing of complaint was delayed by one month, for this incident took place on 09.09.2001 whereas the complaint was filed on 04.10.2001; and (iii) that husband and son of complainant, said to be present on the scene of occurrence at the time of incident did not suffer injuries, thus, making their presence doubtful. Further, blood stained clothes of victim Ranjit Kaur were not produced in Court, and injuries found on the person of respondent No. 1 -Bant Singh were not explained. Besides, there is also a delay of 38 days in filing this application for leave to appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant/complainant submitted that as there are variances between ocular and medical evidence in respect of weapons used by accused Birbal Singh Jassa Singh and that, another accused Sumandha Singh was empty handed, she does not want to press this leave to appeal qua them. However, she submitted that accused Bant Singh has admitted to have suffered injuries in an incident of that day, and further, both parties were admitted in the hospital on same day. Thus, this application for leave to appeal deserves to be granted qua accused Bant Singh.

(3.) AS alleged, impugned incident took place on 09.09.2001 at 7:30 a.m. Admittedly, there was a delay in lodging the complaint before Illaqua Magistrate which was filed only on 04.10.2001. An explanation given for such delay is that the complainant had been trying hard with police to register an FIR on her statement. There are some variances between ocular and medical evidence. In MLR, though two contusions and one incised wound have been indicated, but the exact locations of contusions are in dispute. Clothes of injured were also not produced in Court and radiological X -ray report was not brought to the notice of Court to assess the nature of injuries suffered by complainant Ranjit Kaur. Bant Singh has taken an altogether different stand regarding scene of occurrence, saying that it was inside his house. According to him, the husband and son of complainant attacked him inside his house and they were not caused any injury. On the other hand, as per complainant's version, her husband and son were present when the accused side had attacked her inside the house. Motive relates to a dispute over construction of a common wall. Moreover, the entire prosecution case is based on the same set of evidence which cannot be safely used for conviction of accused Bant Singh. Hon'ble the Apex Court in various judgments on the question of interference against the order of acquittal including the ones reported in (i), 2002 (3) AICLR (S.C.) 834 :, 2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 861 (Harijana Thirupala and others v. Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P Hyderabad; (ii), 2004 (l) AICLR (S.C.) 384 :, 2004 (2) RCR (Cri.) 940, (Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana and another), and (iii) : AIR 2005 SC 2439 : 2005 (3) AICLR (S.C.) 1651 (State of U.P. v. Gambhir Singh and others has time and again observed that if two views are possible, the view taken by trial Court in favour of accused persons while recording acquittal, be taken as possible view. Hence, application for leave to appeal is rejected. Resultantly, the accompanying appeal also fails and is dismissed.