State of Punjab v. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J

Judgment

#1. The applicant-State has filed the application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2021 passed in case bearing FIR No.97, dated

17.09.2018, under Sections 307/452/34 of IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Sangrur, District Sangrur, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR No.97, dated

17.09.2018, under Sections 307/452/34 of IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Sangrur, District Sangrur was CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -2- registered against the accused-respondents. It was alleged that on

16.09.2018, a message was received in the concerned police station qua firing at village Naiwala and on account of the same, Sub Inspector Rakesh Kumar along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence, where he came to know that Deepshivjot Kaur and Parampal Kaur got injured and have been admitted in Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Then, the police officials reached Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where the doctor informed them that both the injured have been referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment. Thereafter, the police officials reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where the doctor told them that both the injured were unfit to make any statement and then, they got referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On reaching there, an application was moved by the police officials before the doctor concerned, if statement of Deepshivjot Kaur can be recorded. On being certified by doctor, her statement was recorded. She stated in her statement that on 16.09.2018, at about 09:00 A.M., they had employed mason and labourers for construction work of their wall. She along with her mother, namely, Parampal Kaur, father, namely, Charanpal Singh and maternal grandfather, namely, Mukhtiar Singh were supervising the construction work of the wall. In the meantime, Shivraj Sharan Singh, Jatinder Singh @ Jaggi, Harpreet Kaur @ Soni and Ajay Karan Singh started prohibiting them from constructing the wall while intruding their house by jumping over the wall. Harpreet Kaur @ Soni and Ajay Karan Singh (respondents) raised lalkara to kill them and then, Jatinder Singh @ Jaggi after taking out a pistol from his trouser, fired CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -3- shots upon her, which hit left side of her chest. Thereafter, Shivraj Sharan Singh also fired towards her mother with an intention to kill her. Then, all the accused fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against all the accused. On the statement made by Deepshivjot Kaur, the present FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. After lodging of the FIR, the police party reached at the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. Three empty cartridges of 32 bore were recovered from the place of occurrence; parcel of which was prepared, sealed and taken into police possession. When the investigating officer along with police party and Charanpal Singh, father of complainant were proceeding towards village Naiwala, accused, namely, Jatinder Singh @ Jaggi was sighted riding a scooty. He was nabbed on the identification by Charanpal Singh and thereafter, he was arrested in this case. He handed over his pistol along with arm licence to the Investigating Officer, which was also taken into police possession. On 21.09.2018, statement of second injured, namely, Parampal Kaur was also recorded at PGI, Chandigarh. Upon an application moved by Parminder Kaur, wife of late Gursant Singh for fair investigation of the case, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur constituted a Special Investigation Team and on the basis of the same, report was submitted and accused, Shivraj Sharan Singh, Harpreet Kaur @ Soni and Ajaykaran Singh were found innocent and thus, they were kept in column No.2 of the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On the presentation of challan, finding a prima facie case under Sections 307, 452 CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -4- read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act against accused, namely, Jatinder Singh @ Jaggi, charges were framed. During the course of trial, accused, namely, Shivraj Sharan Singh @ Parry, Harpreet Kaur @ Soni and Ajay Karan Singh were summoned to face trial. Thereafter, amended charges under Sections 307, 450, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act were framed against all the accused. However, on conclusion of the trial, finding nothing incriminating, the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges framed against them, vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2021. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the applicant-State has approached this Court by way of filing the present application for grant of leave to file appeal.

#3. It has been vehemently contended by learned State counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has miserably failed in appreciating the evidence on record. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents beyond the reasonable doubt as both the prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-1, namely, Deepshivjot Kaur and PW-2, namely, Parampal Kaur, specifically attributed their role and the same was not rebutted by the defence by adducing any cogent evidence. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents on the ground that they were not present at the place of occurrence and they were also found innocent during the enquiry by SIT. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the respondents had an active role in the commission of offence in furtherance of common intention with the other accused in this CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -5- case and the prosecution evidence was corroborated by both prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-1, namely, Deepshivjot Kaur and PW-2, namely, Parampal Kaur, regarding their presence. He has submitted that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the facts and evidence on record that the respondents did not produce any cogent evidence to prove their alibi. He has submitted that both the injured in unison have stated that the co- accused, namely, Jatinder Singh @ Jaggi and Shivraj Sharan Singh @ Parry in furtherance of common intention of the respondents, having trespassed into the house of complainant, fired shots upon them with an intention to kill. He has submitted that the injuries have also been declared to be dangerous to life. He has submitted that the prosecution witnesses and the investigating officer also supported the case of prosecution. He has submitted that complicity of the respondents in the present case has been prima facie established during the investigation. He has submitted that the learned trial Court in hyper-technical manner, misread the evidence on record, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. He has submitted that the present application for grant of leave to file the appeal be allowed and the accused-respondents be convicted and sentenced for the charges framed against them.

#4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- respondents has submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the occurrence took place due to grave sudden provocation. He has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, father of complainant, Charanpal Singh and her CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -6- maternal grandfather, namely, Mukhtiar Singh had witnessed the whole occurrence and it is an admitted fact that Charanpal Singh and Mukhtiar Singh accompanied both the injured through out, i.e. to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and then, PGI, Chandigarh. He has further submitted that SI Rakesh Kumar, Investigating Officer had reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala simultaneously with the injured and he has admitted that he had also gone to PGI, Chandigarh along with the complainant-injured, though he was in his separate vehicle but the eye- witnesses, Charanpal Singh and Mukhtiar Singh have not been examined by the prosecution and thus, they concocted the false story to implicate the respondents in the present case. He has submitted that the injured also made material improvements while giving the evidence in the Court after summoning of additional accused. He has submitted that the motive of occurrence was the dispute regarding the construction of wall by the complainant party, but while appearing in the Court after summoning of additional accused, the complainant as well as the injured have deposed that the complainant, namely, Deepshivjot Kaur is the only daughter of her parents and the accused wanted to kill her so as to grab the property of her father. He has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, mason and labourers were working at that time, and some other persons were also present on the spot but none of the witnesses have been joined. He has submitted that the accused, namely, Jatinder Singh, had filed a civil suit to restrain the complainant party to encroach the passage, which is still pending adjudication. He has submitted that the complainant-injured, CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -7- namely, Deepshivjot Kaur and injured, namely, Parampal Kaur, became aggressor and started pelting brick bats towards Jatinder Singh and due to this provocation, he fired from such a distance that shots were not fatal to anyone. He has submitted that the respondents had no intention to kill the complainant but the shots were fired on sudden provocation. He has submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the true and material facts from the Court. He has submitted that after summoning of additional accused, the complainant has changed her version and motive attributed to the accused is regarding attempt to grab the property of complainant party by the accused. He has submitted that the Special Investigation Team constituted by SSP, Sangrur also declared all the accused except Jatinder Singh as innocent. He has submitted that the injuries suffered were not so serious that have been shown and no surgery was performed to remove the bullets from both the injured. He has submitted that it is clear from the evidence given by the doctor that only ICD insertion operations were performed on both the injured to remove the blood, which oozed inside and collected on the left side of chest of injured, Parampal Kaur and Deepshivjot Kaur. He has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the respondents have not committed any offence. He has submitted that no injury has been attributed to the respondents and they have been roped in the present case only by attributing lalkara to them. He has thus, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -8- evidence available on record and the judgment passed by it suffers from no illegality and perversity. He has further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of 405 days in filing the present application.

#5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record with their able assistance.

#6. As per the case of the prosecution, on 16.09.2018, a message was received in the concerned police station qua firing at village Naiwala. Sub Inspector Rakesh Kumar along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence, where he came to know that Deepshivjot Kaur and Parampal Kaur got injured and admitted in Civil Hospital, Sangrur, then referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and thereafter, referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On the application moved by the police officials before the doctor concerned, statement of Deepshivjot Kaur was recorded. She deposed that on 16.09.2018, at about 09:00 A.M., when she along with her mother, namely, Parampal Kaur, father, namely, Charanpal Singh and maternal grandfather, namely, Mukhtiar Singh supervising the construction work of the wall, then, Shivraj Sharan Singh, Jatinder Singh @ Jaggi, Harpreet Kaur @ Soni and Ajay Karan Singh started prohibiting them from constructing the wall while intruding their house by jumping over the wall. Harpreet Kaur @ Soni and Ajay Karan Singh (respondents) raised lalkara to kill them and then, Jatinder Singh @ Jaggi after taking out a pistol from his trouser, fired shots upon her, which hit left side of her chest. Thereafter, Shivraj Sharan Singh also fired towards her mother with intention to kill her. CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -9-

#7. Having heard the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has carefully appreciated the evidence brought on the record. On receiving application, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur constituted a Special Investigation Team and on filing of report by them, the accused persons, namely, Shivraj Sharan Singh, Harpreet Kaur @ Soni and Ajaykaran Singh were found innocent and thus, they were kept in column No.2 of the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The injured also made material improvements while giving the evidence in the Court after summoning of additional accused. It has been found that the father and the grandfather who were the alleged eye-witnesses were not examined as witnesses in the present case. It has further been found that no injury has been attributed to the respondents and they have been roped in the present case only by attributing lalkara to them, however, the injuries attributed in the present case are to the co-accused and not to the respondents. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the learned trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, i.e. the respondents.

#8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited. Unless the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are shown to be perverse, wholly unreasonable, or based on misreading or non- appreciation of material evidence, this Court would be slow to grant leave to appeal. If two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -10- the view favouring the accused must ordinarily be preferred.

#9. In the present case, learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, after appreciating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence are beyond reasonable doubt.

#10. As per the law settled, the appeal against conviction and that against acquittal rests entirely on different pedestal. As per the criminal jurisprudence, every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the accused is acquitted by the Court of law, there lies double presumption of innocence in his favour. Hence, an Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court in a cavalier manner and it is only in case of perversity of the findings, the Appellate Court should interfere in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court.

#11. In Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1160, learned Appellate Court has held as under:-

#18. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -11- principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of Sambasivan and Others V. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412, has held : “The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are well settled. The powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate Court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal”.

#12. In Jafarudheen and others vs State of Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 495, it has been held that Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial Court rendering acquittal, relevant para of the same reads as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened CRM-A No.966 of 2023 (O&M) -12- but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

#13. There is an application bearing CRM No.28902 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay of 405 days in filing the present application.

#14. In view of the above, this Court finding no perversity in the conclusion arrived by the learned trial Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Consequently, the present application filed by the State under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal on merits as well as on delay of 405 days in filing the same, stands dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

21.07.2026 (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No