Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 740 (PNJ)

Rajbir v. Pal

2016-02-24

HARI PAL VERMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : HARI PAL VERMA, J. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the present application under Section 378(4) Cr. PC for grant of leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contends that clerk of the counsel of the lower court has supplied copy of the order dated 14.9.2015 passed by the trial Court only on 20.12.2015 and then, the applicant-appellant contacted to him for filing the appeal. He further contends that due to this reason, the delay has occurred. In view of the above, the application is allowed and delay of 50 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) Cr. PC for grant of leave to appeal is condoned. This application has been moved under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the order dated 14.9.2015 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Leave granted. Briefly stated, complainant Rajbir son of Budhi Ram, resident of village Ghata, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, appellant herein, filed a complaint against the respondents under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. In the complaint, it has been alleged that the complainant is having agricultural land and a Pucca house. Accused Lalit is the nephew of complainant. He demanded his share in the agricultural land and other properties. Said Lalit has already taken his share in the land and other properties. In this manner, the accused are inimical towards the family of the complainant and wanted to lower down the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the society. On 14.3.2010, accused Lalit convened a Panchayat and thereafter, Maha Panchayat on 21.3.2010, 27.4.2010, 3.5.2010 and 18.5.2010. Said Panchayat was attended by the accused persons. The respondents-accused used derogatory language against the complainant i.e. Chor, Baiman and Dhokabaj. Chowkidar of the village was called by the respondents-accused and on their asking, he got effected the Munadi that the complainant has been ousted from Biradari and nobody would continue relation with him in future. The accused have used derogatory words with an intention to lower down the reputation of complainant and his family in the eyes of society. Chowkidar of the village was called by the respondents-accused and on their asking, he got effected the Munadi that the complainant has been ousted from Biradari and nobody would continue relation with him in future. The accused have used derogatory words with an intention to lower down the reputation of complainant and his family in the eyes of society. Process of summoning was issued and the accused were summoned under Section 500 IPC vide order dated 6.8.2012 passed by learned Magistrate. In his pre-charge evidence, the complainant appeared as PW1 and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. PW2 Des Raj, who is brother in relation of the complainant also reiterated the version of the complaint in his examination-in-chief. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused. Accordingly, the respondents-accused were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 500 IPC vide order dated 10.2.2015 passed by learned Magistrate. After conclusion of the after-charge evidence, learned Magistrate recorded the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. However, no evidence was led by them in their defence. Learned trial Court vide order dated 14.9.2015 acquitted the respondents-accused of the charge levelled against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a respectable person and carries good reputation in the society. Respondent-accused Lalit convened a Panchayat on 14.3.2010 and thereafter, Maha Panchayat on 21.3.2010, 27.4.2010, 3.5.2010 and 18.5.2010 which was attended by all the accused persons. In the Panchayat, derogatory words uttered by accused persons have lowered reputation of the complainant-petitioner as well as his family members. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perusal of the impugned order dated 14.9.2015 passed by learned Magistrate reveals that the complainant has failed to prove the derogatory words spoken by accused persons. In support of his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW1 and PW2 Des Raj, who is his brother in relation, but no respectable villager or even Chowkidar, who stated to have affixed Munadi, has not been examined. Even in the complaint, it is nowhere suggested that PW2 Des Raj was present in the Panchayat. Thus, the complainant has failed to produce any witness who can corroborate the aforesaid allegations. The operative part of the impugned order dated 14.9.2015 passed by learned Magistrate reads as under:- “13. Even in the complaint, it is nowhere suggested that PW2 Des Raj was present in the Panchayat. Thus, the complainant has failed to produce any witness who can corroborate the aforesaid allegations. The operative part of the impugned order dated 14.9.2015 passed by learned Magistrate reads as under:- “13. As per section 499 of I.P.C. if any person either by spoken words or in writing, by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation against any person with the intention to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person then the said person is said to defame that person. In the case in hand, in order to prove the derogatory remarks spoken by the accused which amounts to defamation, the complainant only examined himself to prove the derogatory words such as Chor, Baiyman and Dhokhebaj as well as alleged munadi to oust the complainant. No respectable villager or alleged Chowkidar has been examined by the complainant to prove the above said words alleged to be used by the accused in the panchayat or munadi alleged to be got effected by the accused against the complainant. Only PW2 who is also the brother in relation to the complainant has entered into the witness box to prove these words and alleged Munadi, however, he nowhere mention that he was present in the panchayat. Moreover, complainant in his cross examination has himself admitted that there is no witness who could prove such words i.e. Chor, baiyman and Dhokhebaj alleged to be used by the accused against the complainant or that such munadi in question was effected by the accused against the complainant to oust him from the village. PW2 is interested witness, hence, his evidence could not be relied upon to this effect and therefore, I am of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that the accused persons have defamed him by using derogatory words or by effecting Munadi beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In the light of the facts detailed above and also the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Accordingly, I, hereby, acquit the accused persons of the charge under section 500 of IPC as levelled against them, while giving them the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, I, hereby, acquit the accused persons of the charge under section 500 of IPC as levelled against them, while giving them the benefit of the doubt. The accused and their sureties are discharged from the liability undertaken by them. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate which may warrant interference of this Court. Accordingly, affirming the same, the present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.