9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fit to make statement. 4. In his statement, recorded by SI Mahipal Singh, he had deposed that on 6.4.1983 at 7.00 p.m. he was present in front of his house. His brother Jagan Singh was employed in Delhi Police. He saw him coming down from bus from Bawana Chowk. Respondents Rajbir, Ramesh and Hanumant Singh were sitting on the roof of their house opposite his house. They started abusing his brother. Rajbir Singh respondent exhorted that they be caught hold of and finished so that they are not able to attend the court case fixed on the next day. The brother of the complainant kept quite. Thereafter, the injured complained that he, his son and Jagan Singh went to the roof at first floor of his house. They heard the noise Pakad Lo Salon Ko Bhagane Na Payen . In the mean time Rajbir Singh, Ramesh, Hanumat, Rajesh, Jaggu, Anand and Satbir Singh, who were armed with Knives, climbed up the stairs of his house and attacked .Zile Singh received injuries. When the complainant and Jagan Singh tried to save Zile Singh, accused Hoshiar Singh gave pharsa blow on the left hand of Jagan Singh while Ram Mehar gave pharsa blow on the head of Jagan Singh. Dhani Ram and Ami Chand gave jellies blo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 20.11.1999. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the report on 17.12.99. It was sent to the Director of Prosecution on 21.12.1999. Director of Prosecution forwarded it to Secretary, Law and Justice on 179.1.2000. It was found that it was a fit case for filing an appeal. The file was submitted for approval and it was returned on 6.3.2000. Director of Prosecution forwarded the file to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narela on 10.3.2000 and then it was forwarded to the Standing Counsel (Criminal) on 1.4.2000. The appeal had been prepared and filed on 3.8.2000 and in this process, it is stated that delay occurred of 73 days, which is claimed to be condoned. 10. In the separate replies filed by respondents 8,9,10.12 and in another reply by respondent No. 11, the said application is being contested. It is denied that delay in filing the appeal is only of 75 days and it has in fact been pointed that delay is of 193 days. There was no application, stated to have been filed along with the petition and in any case, it has been alleged that the delay in filing of the appeal need not be condoned in the peculiar facts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. It was held that the Court, in considering whether the appellant has established sufficient cause for continuing the suit in time, has to go by the facts that certain reasons or facts were not known. It was concluded that it could constitute a sufficient cause for condensation of delay. Similarly, in the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and others [1969]1SCR1006 the Supreme Court reiterated the same view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives the court a discretion, which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion and to be exercised upon principles. There should be no negligence or inaction or lack of bonafides. If the appellant made out sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may in its discretion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, condone the delay. 15. As regards the controversy as to if the State could be given any special treatment in this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anatnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (1987)ILLJ500SC went on to conclude that no special treatment in this regard should be given and the guidelines provided were: 1. Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, delay is required to be condoned. We accordingly condone the delay. 18. Confronted with that position, it had been urged that in any case, leave to file the appeal should not be granted. 19. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court almost five decades ago in the case of Prandas v. The State AIR1954SC36 that High Court indeed has the power to set aside a judgment of acquittal. The leading case of Sheo Swarup v. Emperor was looked with approval, which provided the following guidelines: Section 417, 418 and 423 of the Code, give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. Put in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, a presumption cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted witnesses were produced and though dozens of other witnesses from public were stated to have witnessed the occurrence, but the prosecution did not care to examine them. Most important fact noted by the trial court was that there were two versions available, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. It had been noted that incident is stated to have taken place in the room on the first floor and some witnesses stated at Bawana chowk and Therefore, the prosecution case could not be deemed to have been proved. He also recorded that if the incident had taken place in the small room, so many persons including the witnesses and the accused persons armed with weapons, could not have used the same so freely, as had been stated. In face of the different versions, that were forth-coming, the trial court did not believe the prosecution evidence. 24. As already pointed and retention at the risk of repetition, there is a presumption of innocence of respondents and it had been verified by the judgment of the acquittal. This court would only interfere if no other view was possible or the reasoning of trial court was totally absurd. When that is not the position, we find it that it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
