226-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NIRMAL SINGH ATWAL STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present dated 17.08.2011 whereby, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has b allowed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted, FIR No.334 dated 24.06.2000 registered under Sections 326/324/323/506/427/34 of IPC at Police Station Lambra, Jalandhar 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 2 complainant Pal Singh (now deceased) got recorded his statement to the effect that he along with his wife was coming to their village Chitti, in his car. At about 8:30 AM, when they reached near Lambra, Binder Singh @ Karion Manjit Singh @ Jitt Makhan Singh (respondent No.3 herein) empty handed came in their tractor and stopped their passage and gave beatings to the complainant on various parts of his body. When c IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NIRMAL SINGH ATWAL V/S PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal 17.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has b allowed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted, FIR No.334 dated 24.06.2000 registered under Sections 326/324/323/506/427/34 of IPC at Police Station Lambra, Jalandhar Brief facts of the present case are that on 2 complainant Pal Singh (now deceased) got recorded his statement to the effect that he along with his wife was coming to their village Chitti, in his car. At about 8:30 AM, when they reached near Lambra, Binder Singh @ Karion Manjit Singh @ Jitti (respondent No.2 herein) (respondent No.3 herein) armed with empty handed came in their tractor and stopped their passage and gave beatings to the complainant on various parts of his body. When c IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-AS-12-2025 Date of decision: 28.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. is preferred against the judgment of acquittal Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has been partly allowed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted, in a case bearing FIR No.334 dated 24.06.2000 registered under Sections 326/324/323/506/427/34 of IPC at Police Station Lambra, Jalandhar. Brief facts of the present case are that on 24.06.2000, complainant Pal Singh (now deceased) got recorded his statement to the effect that he along with his wife was coming to their village Chitti, in his car. At about 8:30 AM, when they reached near Lambra, Binder Singh @ Karion, i (respondent No.2 herein) both armed with kirpan, armed with datar and Sucha Singh empty handed came in their tractor and stopped their passage and gave beatings to the complainant on various parts of his body. When complainant MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-AS-12-2025 and his wife raised noise, two persons, namely, Harbans Singh and Sewa Ram came at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled away from the spot. Hence, the FIR ( 3. Having heard the learned perusing the record of the case with (supra) was registered after a delay of two days and in the present case, grievous injury was caused on the person of PW and they reached at the hospital in night. While being hospitalized, neither the police came in the night of the complainant present in the hospital. Furthermore, there is a civil litigation pending between the parties regarding ownership and possession of a plot bearing No.467. Further being self-suffered cannot be ruled appellant do not inspire confidence of this Court. 4. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re 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 over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely ob and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses. ( Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. Sta of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. State of 2025 2 and his wife raised noise, two persons, namely, Harbans Singh and Sewa Ram came at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled away from the spot. Hence, the FIR (supra) was registered. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that was registered after a delay of two days and in the present case, grievous injury was caused on the person of PW and they reached at the hospital in night. While being hospitalized, neither the police came in the night nor had they informed any of their relative and wife of the complainant did not make any statement to the police and she was not he hospital. Furthermore, there is a civil litigation pending between the parties regarding ownership and possession of a plot bearing Further, As per the opinion of doctor, the possibility of the injuries suffered cannot be ruled out. As a result, the evidence led by the do not inspire confidence of this Court. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled 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. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses. (See H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram vs. Sta of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs. State of and his wife raised noise, two persons, namely, Harbans Singh and Sewa Ram came at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled away from the counsel for the parties and after able assistance, it transpires that FIR was registered after a delay of two days and in the present case, grievous injury was caused on the person of PW-4 Pal Singh (complainant) and they reached at the hospital in night. While being hospitalized, neither the nor had they informed any of their relative and wife any statement to the police and she was not he hospital. Furthermore, there is a civil litigation pending between the parties regarding ownership and possession of a plot bearing khasra , As per the opinion of doctor, the possibility of the injuries As a result, the evidence led by the do not inspire confidence of this Court. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled 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. Furthermore, the trial Court serving the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of 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 MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-AS-12-2025 Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 judgment passed in No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel perversity or ill warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present appeal and hence, the March 28, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2025 3 Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division bench of this Court in the judgment passed in State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others decided on 06.07.2023 has held tha further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel for the appellant perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present and hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ). A Division bench of this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others passed in CRM-A has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has failed to point out any egality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present present appeal stands dismissed. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment