Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3154 (PNJ)

Surat Singh v. Nishan Singh

2006-08-04

K.S.GAREWAL, R.S.MADAN

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. This order of ours would dispose of the Criminal Appeal No.144- MA of 2006, filed by Surat Singh, under Sec.378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for permission of this Court to file an appeal against the orders of acquittal dated 22.12.2005, whereby the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, acquitted the accused in case FIR No.50 dated 12.4.1998, registered under Sections 307, 379, 382, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered on the basis of Criminal Complaint filed by the complainant Surat Singh. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Surat Singh, Massa Singh, Harbans Singh sons of Bhola Singh are the owners of Bharat Industry Works, Patti and owned some plots near I. T. I. College. Regarding this plot, Nishan Singh son of Jawal Singh, resident of Manihala Jai Singh had filed petition in the Honble High Court and the same was decided in favour of the complainant party. On 10.4.1998 after the decision by the High Court, they started construction on the plot. On 11.4.1998 in the morning when they went to start the construction, found that the construction work which was done on the previous day was demolished and about 3000 bricks were found missing. It was learnt that the building material has been taken away in tractor-trolley by Sukhdev Singh, Harjit Singh sons of Harbans Singh and Nishan Singh with the help of 10/15 persons. On this complaint, a case was registered and the investigation was taken up. The accused persons named in the complaint was joined in the investigation but lateron the complainant filed a complaint in the Court. In the complaint which was filed in the Court, it was alleged that they are the proprietor of M/s Bharat Industries Works, Patti and have two kanals plot on the Khem Karan Patti Road, Patti. It is further alleged that accused No.3 Nishan Singh in connivance with accused No.1 Sukhdev Singh obtained an order of correction of khasragirdawari from the Court of Tehsildar, Patti on 23.04.1993, which was set aside in appeal filed before the Collector vide order dated 16.6.1994. A civil suit was filed by Nishan Singh which was dismissed on 28.11.1996. Appeals against the orders dated 16.06.1994 and 28.11.1996 filed by Nishan Singh were also dismissed upto the level of High Court. A civil suit was filed by Nishan Singh which was dismissed on 28.11.1996. Appeals against the orders dated 16.06.1994 and 28.11.1996 filed by Nishan Singh were also dismissed upto the level of High Court. The complainant thereafter filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sukhdev Singh etc. in which they made statement before the Court on 24.1.1995 that they would not raise any construction in the suit property and as such on the basis of that statement the suit filed by the complainant was dismissed as withdrawn. On 10.4.1998 when the construction work on the aforesaid plot was going on, some police personnel including ASI Harbans Singh came to the plot and got the construction work stopped with the assurance that the building material would not be removed by any one. As directed by the police personnel, the complainant reached police station at 4 PM but the accused persons did not come present. It is alleged that on 11.4.1998, the accused persons along with 18/20 persons armed with deadly weapons with two tractortrolleys started demolishing the construction and took away the building material. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Patti but no action was taken. Hence, criminal complaint was filed in the Court. The learned Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence of the complainant, summoned all the accused to face prosecution under Sections 382, 452, 506 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 14.11.1998, the criminal complaint and the state case were clubbed together. 3. The accused were charged sheeted under Sections 382, 452, 427, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined 7 witnesses besides tendering into evidence documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P7 and thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused as envisaged under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them, to which they denied and pleaded false implication. Document Ex. DC, an order passed by the High Court, was tendered into evidence. 5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused as envisaged under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them, to which they denied and pleaded false implication. Document Ex. DC, an order passed by the High Court, was tendered into evidence. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the learned trial court acquitted all the accused in both the cases, by giving them the benefit of doubt, vide order dated 22.12.2005. 6. Aggrieved by the orders dated 22.12.2005 passed by the learned Sub Judicial Magistrate, Patti, the complainant Surat Singh, filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. We have heard Shri Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the appellant and have carefully swayed the evidence as well as the documents, brought on the record of the trial court. 8. The learned trial court in paras No.12 to 14 of its judgment has given the detailed reasoning to disbelieve the version of the prosecution and the documents relied upon by the complainant. The receipt relating to purchase of 3000 bricks, which was placed on the record by the complainant, no date is mentioned and a bare perusal of that receipt shows that Satnam Singh PW-1, from whom the bricks were alleged to have been purchased, deals in timber material. Satnam Singh, PW-1, was further unable to tell from where he purchased the bricks. So far the statement of Jang Singh son of Karam Singh, PW-2, is concerned he testified that he had sold the wooden frames of the doors to the complainant and tried to prove the receipt Ex. P-2 which was scribed by the complainant himself. This receipt has been produced on the record to prove the ownership of the firm. The version which has been put forward in the FIR registered against the accused and the report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. does not coincide with the averments set up in the complaint. As per the version ASI Harbhajan Singh conducted the investigation of the case and prepared the recovery memos after the disclosure statements of the accused, was unable to recovery anything from the possession of the accused. 9. P. C. does not coincide with the averments set up in the complaint. As per the version ASI Harbhajan Singh conducted the investigation of the case and prepared the recovery memos after the disclosure statements of the accused, was unable to recovery anything from the possession of the accused. 9. When all these factors were taken into consideration by the learned trial court, it acquitted all the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and have also gone through the reasoning given by the trial court and are of the view that the reasoning recorded by the trial court is well founded and called for no interference. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to pin point any other material irregularity or infirmity, in the order passed by the learned trial court. Thus, it is not a fit case where the leave to appeal sought for, be granted to the complainant-appellant. Accordingly, the petition filed under Sec.378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is declined. .