- (1.) Petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of order dated March 21, 2013 passed by lower Appellate Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur acquitting respondents No.2 to 10 by setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents ordered vide judgment dated May 24, 2010 by the trial Court.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present revision petition are that the petitioner had filed complaint under Section 500 / 120 B IPC against the respondents alleging that he had been elected Sarpanch of the Village in the year 2003 whereas respondent No.2 was a rival candidate for the post of Sarpanch whereas the remaining accused were supporters of respondent No.2. The respondents hatched a conspiracy to defame the petitioner by lowering his prestige in the eyes of the general public. They moved an application dated December 12, 2003 to DDPO, Hoshiarpur against the petitioner alleging that he had received 56 quintals of wheat for giving the same to the labourers under the food for work programme and sold the same and misappropriated the sale proceeds. An inquiry was conducted by DDPO, Hoshiarpur in presence of villagers on December 16, 2003 through Panchayat Officer, Garhshankar. In inquiry, the allegations were found false and the petitioner was exonerated. The respondents accused thus allegedly lowered down the reputation of the petitioner in the eyes of public. Petitioner filed a private complaint and examined CW1 Chanan Ram, CW3 Anant Singh while examining himself as CW2.
(3.) The application filed by respondents Ex.C1 dated December 12, 2003, addressed to DDPO, Hoshiarpur was relied upon by the trial Court and the respondents were convicted. The lower Appellate Court arrived at a conclusion that moving an application like Ex.C1 before DDPO, who is officer Incharge, by the respondents, would fall within exception 8 of Section 499 IPC. The order of conviction was set aside on the ground that the trial Court had over-looked exceptions 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC. The operative part of the judgment of acquittal passed by the lower Appellate Court reads as follows:- "The learned trial Court has mainly held the accused responsible on the plea that they had made allegations against the public servant. There is no doubt in it that accused had made a complaint against Sarpanch of village, but they had made the complaint in good faith to the higher authorities i.e. DDPO regarding misconduct of Sarpanch of their village. There is no bar in it that accused being inhabitants of village cannot move any application against the misdeeds of Sarpanch. It is further held by the trial Court that due to rivalry between the parties, the accused had made false allegations against the complainant. Even this contention is devoid of any merits. Rather even if there was any rivalry between the parties, it cannot be ruled out that the complainant falsely implicated the accused in the present case. Consequently, no offence u/s 500 IPC is made out against the present accused and they are entitled to benefit of doubt. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasons and after considering the contentions and rival contentions and after critical analysis of oral as well as documentary evidence already discussed above and keeping in view the case law as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. The benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Prosecution evidence should be of such a nature which should lead to no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, it cannot take place of proof. The defence version of the accused is not to be proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and rather the same is to be judged by the principles of preponderance of probabilities. In this case, prosecution has failed to led cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence to connect the accused with the alleged occurrence and benefit of doubt definitely go to the accused.";