JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal as claimed by appellant-complainant Gurdev Singh son of Chanda Singh (for brevity “the complainant”) and emanating from the record, are that he had been openly projecting the excesses committed on poor & innocent people by the police of Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur. On 22.3.1990 at about 6.00 P.M., Baldev Singh SHO and his driver Baljit Singh respondents-accused (for short “the accused”) with one or two other constables came to his (complainant) house in a jeep. They immediately started dragging, beating, threatened him to falsely implicate in some criminal case and demanded Rs. 2000/- from him. The complainant showed his inability to pay the amount. In the meantime, his son Gurcharan Singh also came there. Thereafter, the accused dragged them from their court-yard. They forcibly took them in a jeep to the police station in the presence of Gurmail Singh son of Sajjan Singh and Ram Singh son of Kaka Singh. They illegally detained, started beating them and kept the complainant hung head downward throughout the night. 2. The case of complainant further proceeds that on 23.3.1990, the accused again started torturing the complainant and his son in a brutal manner. At about 7 P.M. Jagraj Singh son of the complainant came to the police station and handed over an amount of Rs.400/- to him in lock up. Subsequently, the indicated amount was stated to have been given by him to Baldev Singh SHO. Thereafter, at about 8 P.M., they were let off by the accused in the presence of Dev Singh, Sarwan Singh sons of Gurdial Singh, Mall Singh son of Chanan Singh and Gurdev Singh son of Chuhar Singh. The complainant and his son were unable to walk properly on account of injuries caused to them by the accused. On 24.3.1990, they were medico legally examined in Civil Hospital, Sangrur. 3. Narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the accused have illegally detained him & his son, extorted Rs. 400/-, gave merciless beatings, caused injuries and threatened them with dire consequences of false implication in some criminal case. On 24.3.1990, they were medico legally examined in Civil Hospital, Sangrur. 3. Narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the accused have illegally detained him & his son, extorted Rs. 400/-, gave merciless beatings, caused injuries and threatened them with dire consequences of false implication in some criminal case. In the background of these allegations, the complainant filed the criminal complaint against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 330, 343, 357, 365, 385, 448, 500 and 506 IPC in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. Taking into consideration the preliminary evidence brought on record by the complainant, the trial Magistrate summoned the respondents-accused to face the trial, for having committed the offences punishable u/ss 323, 343 and 506 IPC, by means of order dated 7.11.1990. Ultimately, they were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 323, 342, 506 and 384 IPC, by virtue of charge sheets dated 2.7.1998 and 12.7.2000 and the case was slated for evidence of the complainant. 5. The complainant, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused (after charge) himself appeared as PW1 and attempted to corroborate the allegations contained in his initial complaint. He has also examined PW2 Dev Singh son of Gurdial Singh, who has deposed that on 23.3.1990 at about 6.30 PM, Jugraj Singh son of Gurdev Singh came and paid Rs. 400/- to him (complainant) in Police Station Longowal in the presence of other persons. The complainant & his son were unable to walk on account of injuries caused to them by the police. On 24.3.1990, he got them admitted in Civil Hospital, Sangrur for medical treatment. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the complainant is his brother-in-law (gainer) & husband of his sister. An amount of Rs.400/- was not paid in his presence as he was outside the gate of the police station. Statement of PW3 Gurmail Singh is also to that effect. 6. Sequelly, PW4 Dr.R.P.Gupta, Pathologist medico legally examined the complainant on 24.3.1990, vide MLR (Ex.PW4/A) and found two contusions and two bruises. He confirmed that all the injuries were simple in nature. He also noticed five simple injuries on the person of Gurcharan Singh son of complainant, vide MLR (Ex.PW4/C). Statement of PW3 Gurmail Singh is also to that effect. 6. Sequelly, PW4 Dr.R.P.Gupta, Pathologist medico legally examined the complainant on 24.3.1990, vide MLR (Ex.PW4/A) and found two contusions and two bruises. He confirmed that all the injuries were simple in nature. He also noticed five simple injuries on the person of Gurcharan Singh son of complainant, vide MLR (Ex.PW4/C). In crossexamination, PW4 admitted that all the injuries on the persons of both the injured could be the result of fall on hard surface and by friendly hand. The bruises were caused by friction and not by direct blow. He feigned his ignorance as to whether his MLR was sent to police or not. He treated the injured as a private case. PW5 Gurcharan Singh also supported the allegations contained in the complaint of his father. This is the entire evidence brought on record by the complainant. 7. After the close of the complainant’s evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, they have stoutly denied the case and evidence of complainant in totality and pleaded false implication. 8. Taking into consideration the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11.9.2000. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred the present appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this respect. 11. At the very outset, it may be added here that the jurisdiction of the appellate Court in case of acquittal, was determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2817] : 2008(10) SCC 450 . Having considering the scope of sections 378, 386 Cr.PC and a line of various judgments on the point, it was ruled as under (Paras 74 & 75):- “74. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. Having considering the scope of sections 378, 386 Cr.PC and a line of various judgments on the point, it was ruled as under (Paras 74 & 75):- “74. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court’s decision. This is especially true when a witness’ credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong. 75. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii)The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; iv)The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi)The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 12. Above being the legal position and evidence on record, now the core controversy, that arises for determination in this case is as to whether the trial Court has committed such jurisdictional error to acquit the accused and there are substantial and compelling reasons to set aside the judgment of acquittal or not ? 13. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the complainant has miserably failed in this relevant connection and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein- below. 14. As is evident from the record that the story of the complainant is highly improbable and speculative. He claimed that he & his son were illegally detained and beaten up by the accused as he used to openly project their misdeeds. They have also demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/-from him. It is highly improbable to believe that on the one hand, the accused would beat him & his son on account of their propaganda and on the contrary, they would demand Rs. 2000/- as bribe from the complainant. How, when, with whom and in what manner, the accused committed excesses and when, how & in what manner, the complainant has exposed them in this regard, remains an unfolded mystery. At the same time, it is impossible to believe that the accused would demand Rs. 2000/- as bribe money, but would let off the complainant & his son after accepting a meagre amount of Rs. 400/- only. Moreover, it is also not proved on the record that the money had gone in the hands of complainant in the police station. Thus, the motive alleged by the complainant against the accused remained unsubstantiated on record and pales into insignificance. 15. Likewise, the case of complainant was that the accused have dragged and beaten up him and his son on 22.3.1990 at 6 P.M. They also tortured and caused injuries to them in the police station on 23.3.1990 as well. Thus, the motive alleged by the complainant against the accused remained unsubstantiated on record and pales into insignificance. 15. Likewise, the case of complainant was that the accused have dragged and beaten up him and his son on 22.3.1990 at 6 P.M. They also tortured and caused injuries to them in the police station on 23.3.1990 as well. They claimed that the accused caused 20/50 injuries on their persons. The ocular evidence is totally contradicted by the medical evidence, wherein PW4, who medico legally examined the complainant on 24.3.1990, noticed two simple contusions and two abrasions on his person and two simple contusions, multiple abrasion and two abrasions on the person of his son Gurcharan Singh. The duration of injuries was 12 to 24 hours. As per medical jurisprudence, the bruises are only caused by friction and not by direct hit/blow of the weapon. It is also so stated by PW4 as well, whereas the case of complainant was that the accused directly gave injuries to them with dandas, but such bruises on the persons of injured witnesses cannot be caused by direct blow of danda, which further falsifies his case. 16. Not only that, according to the complainant, many persons had collected at his house. He was dragged by the accused, but he has not examined such witnesses to prove his case in this respect, except the vague and unreliable statement of PW3, who was not even aware about the date of occurrence as he has described the date of incident as 22.3.1995. As regards the 2nd incident of release of complainant and his son from the police custody and payment of Rs. 400/- as bribe money, he (complainant) has only examined PW2 Dev Singh, his brother-in-law. There is no other independent corroboration on record in this behalf. Moreover, the occurrence is alleged to be of 22.3.1990, complainant was released on 23.3.1990 and medico legally examined on 24.3.1990, but he had filed the complaint on 28.3.1990 after a lapse of period of four days. That means, there is a delay of four days in filing the complaint, which remained unexplained. 17. Moreover, the occurrence is alleged to be of 22.3.1990, complainant was released on 23.3.1990 and medico legally examined on 24.3.1990, but he had filed the complaint on 28.3.1990 after a lapse of period of four days. That means, there is a delay of four days in filing the complaint, which remained unexplained. 17. Therefore, taking into consideration the delay of four days in filing the complaint, insufficiency, inconsistency of ocular evidence with medical evidence, improbability of the complainant’s version, absence of cogent motive, totality of the facts & circumstances emerging out of the record as discussed here-in-above and having appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. 18. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has recorded the cogent grounds in this behalf. The learned counsel for complainant did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Such articulated impugned judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for complainant, so, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 19. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------