State of Haryana vs Harish Chand and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—State of Haryana has filed this application for grant of leave to appeal against acquittal of Respondents, who were tried in a private complaint instituted at the instance of Parmanand under Sections 425/426/427 IPC.

The case set out by the complainant was that he had taken the land at Dharuhera Gate on lease of Rs. 45/- per month. He was running a shop therefrom and was selling black salt. The grievance of the complainant was that even though his tenancy was upheld by this Court, the accused, in violation of the orders passed by the High Court, had broke opened the doors of the factory building and on 24th June, 1993 made the factory to fall on the ground. They had also demolished the cemented walls and tin shed. Therefore, the accused damaged the property worth Rs. 8/9 lakh. On 9th July, 1988, they had caused fracture of a finger of Suresh Kumar, son of the complainant. The trial Court held the accused- Respondents guilty only of an offence punishable u/s 427 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one-and-a-half year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 45 days. Aggrieved against the same, the accused Respondents filed an appeal in the Sessions Court. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide its impugned judgment dated 14th July, 2008, held that there were material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-3 Gopal Das and PW-4 complainant Parmanand. The appellate Court below held that it is improbable that some persons will destroy the wall of a building by means of lathi in 10 to 15 minutes. Hence, the appellate Court below recorded acquittal of the Respondents u/s 427 IPC.

A perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court reveals that the same is not perverse, rather the same is based on appreciation of evidence. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction in leave to appeal against acquittal, will not re-evaluate or do re-appraisal of the evidence. The view formulated by the lower appellate Court is possible on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Hence, no interference is warranted in the present application for leave to appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.