248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. UDAY SINGH ALIAS UDAA STATE OF HARYANA AND 2. UDAY SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above revision petitions as both are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from Udaa vs. State of Haryana and others. 2. The impugned judgment dated Bhiwani, whereby judgment of conviction dated sentence dated 29.03.2016 Bhiwani have been set aside IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH UDAY SINGH ALIAS UDAA V/S HARYANA AND OTHERS ALIAS UDAA V/S HARYANA AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of both the above revision petitions as both are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRR-703-2019 vs. State of Haryana and others. The present revision petitions have impugned judgment dated 27.08.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, , whereby judgment of conviction dated dated 29.03.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrat ve been set aside and private respondents in both cases have been IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.03.2025 CRR-703-2019 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS CRR-3829-2018 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above-mentioned revision petitions as both are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of 2019 titled as Uday Singh alias s have been filed against the passed by learned Sessions Judge, , whereby judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2016 and order of passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, and private respondents in both cases have been MANISHA 2025.04.09 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-703-2019 01 connected case acquitted. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that on 21.08.2011 4:00 PM, when the complainant reached near the house of private respondents iron punch, arrived at the spot The complainant raised alarm causing his there. He tried to save him but The incident was connection and distribution of its parts. Hence, the FIR ( 4. Mr. D.P.S. Bajwa, the private respondents and cases, which are appropriate place. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for perusing the record of the case with challan was only filed against Ramphal, who died before conclusion of trial and proceedings against him were dropped. Kuldeep and Mayapati i.e. Ex.DB and Ex.DA respectively proved on record by PW accused have taken a specific stand that they had caused injuries to the petitioner and his Mayapati, wife of Ramphal had The learned Court below has correctly observed that to prove the genesis of the vague allegations have been levelled against the private respondents & 2 01 connected case Brief facts of the present case are that on 21.08.2011 when the complainant reached near the house of private respondents along with other accused armed with , arrived at the spot and gave injuries on various parts of his body. The complainant raised alarm causing his brother tried to save him but private respondents incident was caused due to a dispute between the parties for tube connection and distribution of its parts. Hence, the FIR ( Mr. D.P.S. Bajwa, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of private respondents and filed his respective are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. Having heard the learned counsel for perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that challan was only filed against Ramphal, who died before conclusion of trial and proceedings against him were dropped. Further, the MLRs of accused Kuldeep and Mayapati i.e. Ex.DB and Ex.DA respectively proved on record by PW-4 Dr. Kulwant Phogat. accused have taken a specific stand that they had caused injuries to the d his brother in self-defence. In fact, Kuldeep son of Ramphal and Mayapati, wife of Ramphal had also suffered injuries The learned Court below has correctly observed that the genesis of the occurrence, in the alleged incident vague allegations have been levelled against the private respondents Brief facts of the present case are that on 21.08.2011 at about when the complainant reached near the house of one Kuldeep, armed with iron rod, pharsa and and gave injuries on various parts of his body. brother, namely, Bir Singh to come spondents gave him injuries as well. dispute between the parties for tube-well connection and distribution of its parts. Hence, the FIR (supra) was registered. Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respective vakalatnamas in both the Registry is directed to tag the same at the Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after able assistance, it transpires that challan was only filed against Ramphal, who died before conclusion of trial Further, the MLRs of accused Kuldeep and Mayapati i.e. Ex.DB and Ex.DA respectively have been duly 4 Dr. Kulwant Phogat. In the present case, the accused have taken a specific stand that they had caused injuries to the . In fact, Kuldeep son of Ramphal and also suffered injuries in the alleged incident. The learned Court below has correctly observed that the prosecution has failed , in the alleged incident. As such, only vague allegations have been levelled against the private respondents, which MANISHA 2025.04.09 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-703-2019 01 connected case the prosecution has doubt. 6. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the on the basis of re where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. ( State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 judgment State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. 7. However, the plight of the as well as the loss suffered by injured and complainant had suffered injuries substantial enough to attract offence punishable under Section expedient to direct the accused/ of Rs.20,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/ injured-Bir Singh order. While compensation can never fully redress the suffering endured by the complainant faced by them rehabilitation. & 3 01 connected case the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the reasonable The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail the other pointing towards his guilt. (See H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. However, the plight of the petitioner loss suffered by them cannot be overlooked. Significantly, the complainant had suffered injuries substantial enough to attract offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Therefore expedient to direct the accused/private respondents i.e. Rs.10,000/- to petitioner-Uday Singh and Rs.10,000/ Bir Singh, within one month from obtaining a certified copy of this While compensation can never fully redress the suffering endured by the complainant and injured, it is a step toward acknowledging the hardship them, with an aim to meaningfully contribute towards prove its case beyond the reasonable The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail See H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. ). A Division Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others passed in CRM-A No.3 of has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. petitioner-complainant and the injured cannot be overlooked. Significantly, the complainant had suffered injuries substantial enough to attract Therefore, this Court deems it private respondents to pay total compensation Uday Singh and Rs.10,000/- to from obtaining a certified copy of this While compensation can never fully redress the suffering endured by , it is a step toward acknowledging the hardship , with an aim to meaningfully contribute towards their MANISHA 2025.04.09 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-703-2019 01 connected case 8. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds that learned counsel for the petitioner in findings recorded by the learned interference. Accordingly, 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) & 4 01 connected case In view of the discussion above, this Court finds that learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court interference. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are hereby A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In view of the discussion above, this Court finds that learned has failed to point out any perversity or illegality lower Appellate Court, which warrants any both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.09 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment