Pardhan Singh vs Harminder Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Harminder Singh and other respondents were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana with respect to offences punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act. Learned trial Court vide the judgment pronounced on 4.12.1995 acquitted the respondents giving them the benefit of doubt. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal. Complainant Pardhan Singh has filed the present criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal of the respondents.

The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that Pardhan Singh is the complainant. He reported to Inspector Naginder Singh that he is the partner in Shop Nos. 159 and 160 of Harminder Roadlines, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. Pritpal Singh son of Gulab Singh is also a partner therein. In Shop No. 155 156 New Banga Transport is working. On 9.3.1994, the complainant and his servant Gurpreet Singh and partner Pritpal Singh were sitting on the `Chaubara'' of the shop. The worker of Harminder Singh Banga parked a truck in the passage. He was asked to remove the truck. On this Mehar Singh father of Harminder Singh and the servant took away the truck, but while doing so, they were protesting. At about 10.30 p.m. Gurpreet Singh, Pritpal Singh and Jaspal Singh were checking the accounts on the `Chaubara''. A Maruti car bearing registration No. PB085733 stopped. There were four occupants. One of them was Harminder Singh. Harminder Singh exhorted other persons. They all abused Gurpreet Singh and others mentioned above. The complainant, Gurpreet Singh, Pritpal Singh and Jaspal Singh came down. Gurpreet Singh was ahead of them. Harminder Singh fired with his .12 bore gun. It hit Gurpreet Singh, who fell down. Gurpreet Singh was dragged into the shop in an injured condition. The complainant and others threw the shutter and locked it. Respondents started brick. batting and tried to break the shutter. Hrminder Singh and others kept standing outside asking the complainant and others to come out. After they left Gurpreet Singh was brought to Christian Medical College and Hospital, but he died on the way.

After investigation, challan was submitted against the respondents.

Learned trial court held that the alleged eyewitnesses were got present and there were inherent improbabilities in the case.

In a revision petition filed against the acquittal, if the probative value of the evidence has been considered the High Court will not interfere, even if it would come to a conclusion to the contrary. In the present case, learned trial court has considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no reason to take a different view. In any case when probative value has been considered and findings arrived at, which are not perverse or erroneous, there is no ground to interfere.

Accordingly, the petition being without merits, must fail and is dismissed.