Jorawar Singh v. Harpreet Singh & ORS









  

 


     

! "  #   $  %#$
  !"

#$
%#&   & ' ()$*  %#&   '()*  
!+ +!

 + ##' ,-*$ $$'.

$.' #  *# /       -$    (   '&  ##'   '' $$$'.$.' #  *#$$


 + #   ''$ 0"$-$$
 
 ($ $ $$  
 (#$,. ' '"

$(*$    #$  1"$   ( -$"$ 
(
(

$ 23( -/3%4 $$

2(  $ '  $ () -$
  + # 5*- * *$   0"$- 1"'6"# 7(# 

$" .##',  / )##''"

  * (  -$"""'$ ##'# 

$,. *-' -   -($*$ $ 50"$-  
 ( $-$

 * *$   0"$-1"'6"# 7(

  #$,. ' '"

$($ 0"$- #$,. ' $)##''"

$( *-5-#' # 

$ #  *#

8 $"' ",-  0"

$ .     $"'.  9-$  $      "''.  "## $    # "* ($#    ' '"

$( 0"

  $  "

-(   "  *  $"     * . $ # ,**'" *$0"

$5*-(

"'. $  ,1"' "$ 8 $"'

"

  $   "

 &8%,  0"

$ # (.  -$'  $# $"$  $( "''.

"## $,. "' -.('$,. # "  8 $ "' '",-  $'. &8%( "'$,$ $'( /3% # -#'.  $ 5.

:  0"

$# (  -$'''.9-$$ #  &8%( -#'" $ '' 0"


   

             

      

 

  



 



       !      



      

  "#    

      

 

%&#    



;  (  <"

0            " $    '' 0"


   

  !            

      !

 

    




 

   

      '        



7.

The allegations in the FIR, are that the accused person after forming unlawful assembly, criminally tress-passed into the house of Harpreet Singh, and inflicted simple injuries to Jorawar Singh and Gurjant Singh with swords. In order to prove the allegations, Jorawar Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW4, and he fully supported the prosecution version and in the cross-examination, he admits that his brother Harpreet Singh @ Baba, filed a criminal case against Darshan Singh, and the same was cancelled. Therefore, the pendency of the previous litigation was duly admitted. So far as Gurjant Singh is concerned, though, he was examined in the witness box as PW10, however, he could not be cross-examined. Therefore, his evidence was not read by the Courts below. Further the MLR was proved by PW5-Dr.

Rajesh Garg, and in his cross-examination he admits that the injuries could not occur due to the sword, but rather the injuries are superficial in nature.

respondent. Therefore, it is evident that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular testimony, rather they contradict each other. There is only one star prosecution witness i.e. the present petitioner Jorawar Singh. However, his evidence finds no support from the documentary evidence, and the learned trial Court concerned has not found his evidence to be trustworthy.

8.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 92 laid down broad principles which are to be followed, while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, which are as under:

"

(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court, based on the evidence before it, may reach its

     (      )
!  *   +          ,    

     ,  ,

       ,  ,$ #      ,  ,   

     ,  ,  - ,    

  +  $ 

       .

       ( / 

             ,     ,  

     .

    (   

 .

 





     

  

  .



  

 (

   

$  

 #     

$  

      

  #    

 

    

##      

/ # 

$ 

 (

                  

 

   

#  

0"

        

  

        

    (

#   1 9.

On the touchstone of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in view of the above discussed propositions, t  "

 9-$    $   ,'"'

  * (",'$.# * . '''.   $ 1"'(#$,. ' '"

$  (    *       ,*(     #   #   $-$ %#&  

,  -
 ;   #=5 $>54 ;   # ,'>54