CRM-A-495-MA-2018 -1- 212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-495-MA-2018 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 Hoshiyar Singh ..... Applicant Versus Manpreet Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocate for the applicant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Yatin Bunger, AAG, Punjab. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 07.11.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby respondents No.1 and 2 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC. 2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR No.227 dated 29.11.2015 under Sections 302/34 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Khanna, was registered by one Sandeep Singh son of Megh Singh. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the night of 29.11.2015, Chamkaur Singh (since deceased), accompanied by complainant Sandeep Singh, who was working with him as a caterer, went to village Rohno Kalan as the deceased intended to meet Rajvir Kaur, with whom he was allegedly having illicit relations. After waiting for some time, Sandeep Singh received a call from the deceased's mobile phone and some unknown person asked him to reach a location and, upon reaching the spot, allegedly saw respondents No.1 and 2, namely, Manpreet Singh and Jatinder Singh assaulting Chamkaur Singh SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.20 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-495-MA-2018 -2- with dandas. The assailants allegedly forced the injured to leave the place. Thereafter, the complainant made Chamkaur Singh sit on his motorcycle and was taken to Civil Hospital, Nabha and on the way Chamkaur Singh told the complainant that Rajvir Kaur’s husband, namely, Manpreet Singh and his friend, namely, Jatinder Singh had beaten him. However, on the way, the injured fell off the motorcycle and became unconscious on the road. Subsequently, with the help of Kamaljit Singh, Malkit Singh and Satnam Singh, the injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Nabha, where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the statement made by Sandeep Singh, the present FIR came to be registered. The investigation commenced. Postmortem of the dead body was carried out. Respondents No.1 and 2 Manpreet Singh and Jatinder Singh were arrested. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. To prove its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, including the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, the complainant, the investigating officers and other material witnesses. Besides this, documentary evidences were also tendered by the prosecution. Thereafter, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of both the accused were recorded. On the conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court after hearing both the sides and appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused- respondents No.1 and 2 from the charges framed against them vide impugned judgment dated 07.11.2017. Aggrieved by the same, applicant Hoshiyar Singh, who is father of the deceased, is before this Court by way of filing the present application for grant of leave to file appeal. 3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.20 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-495-MA-2018 -3- applicant that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the medical and ocular evidence in its proper perspective and wrongly discarded the prosecution case merely because the complainant turned hostile. It is further argued that the medical evidence fully corroborates the prosecution version by establishing that the deceased died on account of multiple ante-mortem head injuries caused by a blunt weapon. It is contended that the recovery of blood-stained dandas at the instance of the accused, the extra-judicial confession made before PW-9 and the oral dying declaration made by deceased to PW-12 constitute strong incriminating circumstances which have been ignored by the learned trial Court. It is, thus, submitted that learned trial Court has misread the evidence and extended the benefit of doubt on untenable grounds, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, it is prayed that leave to appeal be granted and the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel submits that though the prosecution had led evidence before the trial Court, however, learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the entire evidence, passed an order of acquittal. 5. Having heard the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that learned trial Court has carefully appreciated the evidence brought on record and has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to accused/respondents No.1 and 2. The prosecution case primarily rested upon the testimony of PW-8 Sandeep Singh, the complainant and the alleged eye-witness. However, during trial, he did not support the prosecution case and was declared SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.20 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-495-MA-2018 -4- hostile. Since the complainant did not support the prosecution case, the prosecution version became doubtful. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that learned trial Court also gave valid reasons for rejecting the alleged extra-judicial confession made before PW-9 Balbir Singh, holding that his testimony was not trustworthy, as there was no occasion for the accused to make extra judicial confession before Balbir Singh. In the cross- examination, he stated that he did not know Manpreet Singh and Jatinder Singh before 29.11.2015 and he saw them on 29.11.2025 in the evening time. Similarly, the alleged oral dying declaration stated by PW-12 Jagjit Singh was found to be an improved version and was, therefore, not relied upon. As regards the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, learned trial Court found that these dandas were recovered from kotha of electric motor, which was an open place and accessible to all and further no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery of the said dandas and, thus, found that the recovery proceedings did not satisfactorily connect the respondents with the commission of the crime. As per the postmortem examination i.e. Ex.PA, the cause of death was found to be due to injuries to vital organ i.e. brain which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death to an ordinary course of nature. Besides this, no document prepared in the Civil Hospital, Nabha was neither brought on record nor any such documents was produced before the Medical Officer at the time of postmortem examination which further creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution. 6. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court should not interfere merely because another view is possible. Unless SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.20 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-495-MA-2018 -5- the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, unreasonable, or based on misappreciation of evidence, the order of acquittal does not warrant interference. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-respondents No.1 and 2. This Court finds that the conclusions drawn by learned Sessions Judge are based on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and constitute a plausible view. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the trial Court suffer from perversity, illegality or misreading of material evidence. 7. 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. In Jafarudheen and others vs State of Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 495, it is held that Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial Court rendering acquittal, relevant para of the same reads thus: “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 SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.20 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-495-MA-2018 -6- 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 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.” 8. In Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2026 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 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 SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.20 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-495-MA-2018 -7- and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal”. 9. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the anvil of law settled, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the view taken by learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Consequently, the present application filed by the applicant under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal stands dismissed. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 15.07.2026 sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.20 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document