In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh 219 CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.07.2026 State of Punjab … Applicant Versus Suraj Kalyan ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J . CRM-38042-2019 There is a delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CRM-A-2782-2019 (Main case) 1. The applicant/appellant, the State of Punjab, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby respondent Suraj Kalyan was acquitted, while the other three accused, namely Shiv @ Shivam Kalyan, Sikander Kalyan, and Sukhdev Kalyan @ Chidi, were convicted in connection with FIR No. 98 dated 17.06.2014, registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Division No. 2, Jalandhar. 2. The brief facts emanated from the pleadings of the case are that on 17.06.2014, at about 9:00 p.m., the complainant was returning from his house PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 2 ) when, opposite Naaz Cinema, he noticed his brother, Arjun, standing along with his friend Rahul. It is alleged that they were surrounded by accused Sukhdev Kalyan @ Chidi, armed with a kirpan; Sikander Kalyan, also armed with a kirpan; Shiv @ Shivam Kalyan, armed with a dattar; and the respondent, Suraj Kalyan. It is further alleged that all the accused started abusing Arjun, accusing him of having informed the police about their activities. According to the complainant, Arjun had objected to the unlawful activities of the accused, who were allegedly engaged in the trade of intoxicants, as a result of which several persons had lost their lives. The prosecution further alleges that respondent Suraj Kalyan raised a lalkara and pushed Arjun onto the road divider. When Arjun attempted to get up, accused Sikander Kalyan inflicted a kirpan blow on the left side of his neck and thereafter caused another injury with a dattar on his arm. Shiv @ Shivam Kalyan also assaulted Arjun with a dattar, causing an injury to his left arm. When Rahul intervened in an attempt to rescue Arjun, he too was attacked and sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. Upon hearing the cries raised by the complainant, members of the public started gathering at the spot, whereupon the accused fled from the scene. Thereafter, the injured Arjun and Rahul were taken to the Civil Hospital. Arjun was declared brought dead by the attending doctors, while Rahul, who had sustained serious injuries, was admitted for treatment and was stated to be in a critical condition. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and relied upon Ex. PW-1 to Ex.PW-15/K & Ex.MO-8 and Ex.PZ. Subsequently, the public prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence, wherein the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated however, the accused led his defence PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 3 ) evidence by examining one witness i.e. DW-3 and in defence 3 other official witnesses were examined i.e. DW-1, DW-2 and DW-4 and closed his evidence. The accused's statements were recorded in consonance with the spirit of Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution and pleaded his false implication in the present case. 4. In defence, DW-1, Vishal Kumar, a family friend of the respondent-accused, was examined. Upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 29.05.2019, acquitted the respondent, Suraj Kalyan, while convicting the remaining accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the said respondent i.e. Suraj Kalyan, the State of Punjab has preferred the present appeal seeking leave to appeal against the said judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant–State submits that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and erroneously acquitted the respondent-accused on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is contended that the material prosecution witnesses had consistently supported the prosecution case, but their testimonies were neither objectively evaluated nor appreciated in their correct perspective. Despite the cogent evidence on record, the trial Court wrongly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent be granted. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and have carefully reviewed the Trial Court record. 7. The sole question before this Court is whether the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2019 qua acquittal of the respondent requires interference after perusal PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 4 ) of the impugned judgment and the evidence placed on record. As per the FIR, Ex. PW13/B, the allegations made therein against the respondent/accused i.e. Suraj Kalyan are that he raised ‘lalkara’ against the deceased Arjun by saying that he be taught a lesson and pushed him on the road divider. Thereafter, the other accused namely Sikandar @ Chidi gave an injury with the ‘kirpan’ on the left side of the neck and also with a ‘dattar’ by hitting on the arm of the deceased Arjun. One another co-accused namely Shivam used his ‘dattar’ and hit upon left arm of the deceased Arjun, where the injured Rahul tried to save deceased Arjun from all these persons, but ultimately he succumbed to his injuries and later on declared dead. 8. In the present case, the material witness is PW-1/injured Rahul, who deposed before the Court that when deceased Arjun was lying on the ground the respondent/accused gave kick blows to him and as per the testimonies of PW-4 – Dr. Tarsem Lal, PW-5 – Dr. Sukhwinder Singh and PW-6 – Dr. Monika Chopra, who are doctors by profession gave their medical opinions. None of the injuries, which proved fatal to the deceased Rahul is attributed to the respondent/accused. 9. Learned Trial Trial Court in the impugned judgment observed that Ashwani Kumar is the complainant and eye-witness, who did not suffer injuries and observed the incident. On the other hand, PW-1 Rahul himself is the injured in the incident. Both these witnesses gave narrative as to how the incident happened at around 9:00 P.M near Balmiki Mandir. As per them Sukhdev Kalyan was having ‘kirpan’, Sikandar Kalyan was having ‘kirpan’ and Shiv Kalyan was having ‘datar’. Suraj Kalyan was not having anything in his hand. It has also been observed that it was specifically narrated that firstly they started abusing deceased Arjun making allegations against him that he is tout PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 5 ) of the police and is giving information to the police regarding sale of intoxicants by the respondent/accused. When deceased Arjun protested, Suraj Kalyan raised ‘lalkara’, exhorted and gave a push to Arjun. Whereas other co-accused inflicted grievous injuries to the deceased Arjun. 10. Learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence and material available on record observed that it did not find enough and considerable dents in the prosecution story qua the respondent/accused. As per prosecution version and statements of eye-witnesses, the respondent/accused was empty handed and was not having anything his hands. If it is a pre-planned or concerted action of accused, then the respondent/accused Suraj Kalyan might be having weapon in his hand also. The only role attributed to the respondent/accused was exhorting the other co-accused. Learned Trial Court in para No.33 of the impugned judgment by relying upon the various judgments, observed that the presence of the respondent/accused Suraj Kalyan at the spot seems doubtful. Whereas on the other hand, all other persons were having deadly weapons and it seems unusual that a person from the same family will not be having some weapon if this was the intention of the assailant party. 11. We have also perused the material available on record as well as the testimony of DW-3 Vishal Kumar i.e. the only defence witness, wherein it has been stated that on the date of occurrence, the respondent/accused was with him in a hotel till 10:30 P.M. as the respondent/accused organized a party on account of having blessed with a son. Even otherwise, the other co-accused, who inflicted injuries upon the deceased have been convicted as the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against them. As far as the respondent/accused Suraj Kalyan is concerned, learned Trial Court has given the benefit of doubt relying upon the testimony of DW-3 Vishal Kumar, who deposed that at the time of PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 6 ) occurrence the respondent/accused was not present at the spot rather was with him and the said fact has nowhere been controverted by the prosecution witnesses during the trial. 12. The applicant/appellant – State of Punjab has challenged the acquittal of the respondent/accused by way of filing the present appeal on the ground that the prosecution proved the presence of the respondent/accused Suraj Kalyan at the spot and role attributed to him is that he only exhorted the other co-accused, but the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly establish that he not only exhorted the other accused rather he also give a push to the deceased on account of which the deceased Arjun fell on the road divider and thereafter when the deceased tried to get up, then other accused persons started causing injuries to him with their respective weapons. 13. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the testimony of DW-3, Vishal Kumar, has not been effectively rebutted by the prosecution. We have independently examined the evidence on record, including the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1, the injured eyewitness Rahul, and PW-3, the complainant Ashwani Kumar, as well as the deposition of DW-3, Vishal Kumar. We have also considered the medical evidence adduced through PW-4, Dr. Tarsem Lal, PW-5, Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, and PW-6, Dr. Monika Chopra. The medical evidence does not attribute any fatal injury sustained by the deceased Arjun to the respondent, Suraj Kalyan. Even if the prosecution version is accepted to the extent that the respondent raised an exhortation (lalkara) or pushed the deceased, no injury attributed to the respondent has been shown to have caused or contributed to the death of Arjun. The fatal injuries are specifically attributed to the co-accused who were armed with deadly weapons. At the same time, the testimony of DW-3 PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 7 ) cannot be brushed aside lightly. DW-3 consistently deposed that, at the relevant time, the respondent was not present at the place of occurrence but was accompanying him at a hotel where a celebration had been organised on the occasion of the birth of the respondent's son. The prosecution has not been able to effectively discredit this version during the course of trial. Having examined the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference. The view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one based on the evidence on record, and the respondent has rightly been extended the benefit of doubt. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent. 14. The credibility of both the prosecution witnesses has also been impeached due to inconsistencies in their testimonies, as the PW-3 Ashwani Kumar/complainant deposed that the respondent/accused raised a ‘lalkara’ that deceased Arjun be taught a lesson and exhorted him on the road divider, whereas PW-1 Rahul made a statement that the respondent/accused alongwith other co-accused gave kick blows to the deceased Arjun, which suggests that the foundational facts established by the prosecution were established beyond a reasonable doubt. After reviewing the impugned judgement as well as the evidence of material witnesses mentioned therein, we also share the same view that in a criminal case, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There should be no other possible inference that will be taken except the guilt of the accused, which are not the circumstances in the present case. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that the present case was registered by PW-3 by lodging FIR (Ex. PW13/B, however, during the PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 8 ) testimony, contrary depositions were made by them as alleged in the FIR where several improvements were made by discrediting the testimonies, which impeached their credibility. The relevant para of the impugned judgement is reproduced here in below:- “31. Having discussed so much about the quality of evidence, this court must observe that PW-1 Rahul and PW-3 Ashwani Kumar are largely believable and conviction can be passed upon their testimony. However, at this juncture, this court would like to add that still mechanical interpretation of their statements cannot be made. 32. Wherever reasonable and convincing doubts are being created, then court is duty bound to consider those. Exercising this care, this court finds enough and considerable dents in the prosecution story qua accused Suraj Kalyan. As per prosecution version and statements of eyewitnesses, this Suraj Kalyan was empty handed and was not having anything in his hands. It seems improbable. If it is a pre-planned or concerted action of accused, this accused Suraj Kalyan might be having weapon in his hand. The only role attributed to this accused was exhorting other co-accused. 33. In such like circumstances, in judgment Lakhi Ram and ors. Versus State of Haryana, 1994(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 425, benefit was given to such type of accused, whose role was merely of exhorting. In judgment State of Punjab Versus Darshan Singh and ors., 1992(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 381, it was observed that where some accused did not committed any overt act, then common intention cannot be inferred. In judgment Jugraj Singh and another Versus State of Punjab, 2007(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 276, it was observed that there is a general tendency to rope in innocent persons also and while doing so, the role attributed to such an accused is generally of giving of exhortation. In judgment Balwantbhai B. Patel Versus State of Gujarat and others, 2010 (5) R.C.R.(Criminal) 352, benefit was given to accused where only allegation of catching hold or exhortation was made. Similar view PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 9 ) was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment Hem Raj Versus Raja Ram and others, 2004 AIR (SC) 1489. Applying these judgments intothe present case, presence of Suraj Kalyan at the spot seems doubtful. All other persons were having deadly weapons. It seems unusual that a person from the same family will not be having some weapon if this was the intention of assailant party. 34. Coupled with these facts, there is one defence witness also. DW-3 Vishal Kumar had stated that on that date, Suraj Kalyan was with him in a hotel till 10:30 P.M as there was a party since Suraj Kalyan was blessed with son. No doubt, evidence of such nature can be manufactured and DW-3 Vishal Kumar can be interested witness, but the court cannot see each defence witness with suspicion. Defence witnesses deserve equal respect more particularly when parties are inimical towards each other and effort can be made to sift the wheat from chaff. Atleast, doubts had emerged and benefit of doubt had to be given to accused Suraj Kalyan.” 15. We also find that the testimonies of PW-1, Rahul, and PW-3, Ashwani Kumar, are not entirely consistent with each other on the material aspects of the prosecution case. Furthermore, the medico-legal report (Ex. PW5/A) does not disclose any injury on the body of the deceased Arjun corresponding to the allegations levelled against the respondent. Rather, the medical evidence does not lend support to the prosecution version insofar as the role attributed to the respondent is concerned. On the contrary, the injuries which ultimately proved fatal to the deceased Arjun have been specifically attributed to the co-accused, who already stand convicted vide the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2019. In the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the involvement of the respondent in the commission of the alleged offences. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to dislodge PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 10 ) the presumption of innocence available to the respondent, which stood further reinforced by the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, extended to him the benefit of doubt by recording an order of acquittal. 16. After reviewing the pleadings and the impugned judgment, we believe that the examination of prosecution witnesses does not match the allegations against the respondent/accused, and the evidence placed on record does not support such allegations. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from illegality or perversity. In a criminal matter, whenever doubt is cast upon the prosecution's case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. After examining the depositions of the prosecution and defence witnesses, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondent/accused and acquitted him. 17. In an appeal filed against an acquittal, the appellate court must examine whether the findings of the Court are perverse and prima facie illegal. Once the appellate Court finds that the grounds on which the judgment is based are not depraved, the scope of the appeal filed against acquittal is limited, considering that the trial court's finding further strengthens the legal presumption of the accused's innocence. At this point, it is imperative to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479, wherein it has been observed as follows: “8. It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 11 ) the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it being the final Court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, the law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate Court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent Court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate Court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate Court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference.......” 18. Similarly, in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same view and the relevant extract of the said judgment reads as follows: “78. On careful analysis of the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that the reasons given by the High Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal is unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of law. The trial court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable”. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-A-2782-2019 (O&M) ( 12 ) 19. Thus, the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered with only for compelling and substantial reasons. In case the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it would be a compelling reason for interference but where there is no perversity in the finding of the impugned judgment as regards acquittal of the respondent Suraj Kalyan, the appellate Court must not take a different view only because another view is possible. This is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the demeanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be upset in the absence of strong and/or compelling grounds. 20. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Therefore, the application seeking grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed and leave to appeal declined. 21. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) JUDGE JUDGE 08.07.2026 Pankaj Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.20 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment