- (1.) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 137-DBA of 1995 (State of Haryana v. Sudh Ram & another) and Criminal Appeal No. 1636-SB of 2005 (Kuldip Singh v. State). Both these appeals arise out of two separate judgments pertaining to the same incident and are the result of cross-cases between the parties.
(2.) Vide judgment dated 15.7.1994, appellant Kuldip Singh (in Criminal Appeal No. 1636-SB of 2005), was convicted under Sections 324 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months vide order dated 18.7.1994, whereas his co-accused Surjit Singh, who had been charged substantively for the offence under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code course of trial. Accused Sudh Ram and Ajmer Singh were acquitted vide separate judgment of even date against which Criminal Appeal No. 137-DBA of 1995 has been filed by the State of Haryana.
(3.) Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, the learned counsel for Kuldeep Singh appellant has argued that the incident had happened in the year 1986 and in the light of the fact that the accused on both sides were young men and one of the main accused Surjit Singh had died during the course of trial, it would perhaps, in the circumstances, be proper to release the appellant Kuldip Singh on probation. We also observe from the record that it was Surjit Singh, who had caused the grievous injury by cutting off the left ear of Ajmer Singh. We also observe that both sides had received injuries in the incident. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court in the State appeal and are of the opinion that no interference is called for. A positive finding of fact has been recorded that the accused herein had been assaulted by the opposite party and they had acted in their self defence. The Court accordingly observed that from the place of incident, it was clear that the incident had happened in the fields belonging to the accused and a categoric finding has been recorded to that effect by the trial Court. We are, therefore of the opinion that no interference is called for in the State appeal as well. It has been held in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 1 SCC 166 that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal was perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence and if from the evidence available on record two views are possible, the one taken Court should not be disturbed. We find no such flaw in the judgments before us. Moreover, we have, as already mentioned above, released the appellant in the connected appeal No 1636-SB of 2005 on probation, it would, therefore, be wholly unfair to proceed against the present set of accused- respondent in a different manner. We accordingly dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 137-DBA of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No 1636- SB of 2005 on probation, it would, therefore, be wholly unfair to proceed against the present set of accused-respondent in a different manner. We accordingly dismiss Criminal Appeal No.137-DBA of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 1637-SB of 2005. We, however, order that the appellant Kuldip Singh be released on probation on condition to be determined by the trial Court.;