Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2459 (PNJ)

Ishwar v. Manoj

2017-10-11

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, M.M.S.BEDI

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih:- This is an application for special leave to appeal by complainant preferred for sentence to respondent No.1-Manoj as he has been acquitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and for challenging the acquittal of respondent No.2-Shakuntla. 2. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that acquittal of respondent No.2-Shakuntla has been challenged on the ground that she had accompanied her husband and son, on the date of incident and joined the co-accused in inflicting injuries to Gopal, son of complainant by trespassing his house. Though respondent No.2-Shakuntla has been attributed injury on the fingers of left hand of Gopal, but she has been wrongly acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. Counsel further submitted that respondent No.1-Manoj had inflicted injury with an iron rod on the head of Gopal, son of the complainant, whereas, respondent No.2-Shakuntla gave a danda blow on the fingers of left hand of Gopal. 3. Mahender-husband of respondent No.2 having died during the trial, it is not necessary to assess his culpability. 4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant. So far as respondent No.2-Shakuntla is concerned, she was allegedly armed with danda. While acquitting her, the lower Court has referred to the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and taken into consideration the nature of injury attributed to Shakuntla and passed an acquittal order. We have also considered the simple injury attributed to Shakuntla and the probability of her having joined company of her son and husband to trespass the house of complainant to cause injury to Gopal. 5. Taking into consideration the abovesaid circumstances, we do not find any logic to re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion from that the one arrived at by the trial Court. The benefit of doubt has rightly been granted to Shakuntla. As such, the application for leave to appeal against Shakuntla is hereby declined. 6. So far as, the role attributed to respondent No.1-Manoj is concerned, the said accused has already filed an appeal against his conviction. This Court has to re-appreciate the evidence so far as the role of Manoj is concerned in the appeal filed by him i.e. CRA-S-2338-SB-2016. As such, the application for leave to appeal against Shakuntla is hereby declined. 6. So far as, the role attributed to respondent No.1-Manoj is concerned, the said accused has already filed an appeal against his conviction. This Court has to re-appreciate the evidence so far as the role of Manoj is concerned in the appeal filed by him i.e. CRA-S-2338-SB-2016. Without expression of any opinion whether the acquittal of Manoj under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is legal or illegal, we are of the opinion that the appellant has got a right under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), to challenge the acquittal or inadequacy of sentence. 7. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2015(4) Law Herald (SC) 3404 : 2015(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3762 (SC) : 2016(1) Marriage L.J. 175 (SC) : 2015 LawHerald.Org 2122] : 2015 (4) R.C.R. 705 and proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. read with Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., leave to appeal against respondent No.1-Manoj is allowed. The appeal be registered. The appeal is admitted to be heard alongwith the appeal filed by respondent No.1-Manoj against his conviction i.e. CRA-S-2338-SB-2016. 8. It is clarified that the present appeal will be treated as an appeal under proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C. alongwith the application for leave to appeal in view of the abovesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.