State of Punjab v. Hari Singh and Anr

CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 1-103 (2 ca%e%) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶1CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 Date of Deci%ion: 26.07.2024 State of Punjab   …Appellant Vs. Hari Singh and another          …Respondents

¶2CRR-931-2003 Balbir Singh   …Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and others                 …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHE5HAWAT Present: Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Arun Jindal and Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocates for respondent No. 1 in CRA D-637-DBA-2003 and for respondent No. 2 in CRR-931-2003. Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kasish Sahni, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRR-931-2003. Appeal qua respondent No. 2-Jit Singh stood abated. *** N.S.SHE5HAWAT , J.

¶1This   judgment   shall   dispose   off   two   petitions,   i.e., CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 titled as "State of P4njab V%. Ha/i Sing9 an2 anot9e/? and CRR-931-2003 titled as "Ba1bi/ Sing9 V%. T9e CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 2-State of P4njab an2 ot9e/%?, as the same arise out of the common judgment and order dated 23.01.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. In fact, Hari Singh and Jit Singh, both the accused were tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur and vide the impugned judgment, Hari Singh accused was ordered to be acquitted, whereas, Jit Singh accused was convicted under Section 304-II IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- alongwith default stipulation.

¶2  During the pendency of the present appeal and revision, Jit   Singh   had   expired   and   vide   order   dated   10.07.2024,   the proceedings   qua   Jit   Singh   respondent   No.   2   in CRA-D-637-DBA-2003 and respondent No. 3 in CRR-931-2003, stood abated. Now, the only question to be answered by this Court in both the petitions is as to whether the acquittal of Hari Singh, respondent No. 1 in CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 and respondent No.2 in CRR-931-2003 by the trial Court was justified.

¶3The FIR Ex.PF in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made  by Balwinder Singh son of Anokh Singh, resident of Kaheru and the same has been reproduced below:- "At this time, Balwinder Singh son of Anokh Singh Jat resident of Kaheru, came to the police station and informed that I am resident of village Kaheru and is an agriculturist. My residential house had made in my field. Yesterday on 4.9.2000 my Jija (husband of his sister) CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 3-Balbir Singh son of Shigara Singh Jat and my nephew, Harwinder Singh son of Balbir Singh Jat residents of Bhatian Kalan, Police Station Amargarh came to our village Kaheru to meet. After taking meals at night we were sitting and talking in the house, then Harwinder Singh told me that, I am going to meet Hari Singh, who is residing near Gurdawara and after saying this Harwinder Singh left the house. When Harwinder Singh did not come back for about two hours, then I alongwith my brother.in.law Balbir Singh went towards the house of Hari Singh for enquiring. When we reached near the house of Hari Singh son of Pritam Singh Jat resident of Kaheru then it will be about 11 p.m., that the electric light in the house of Hari Singh was glowing and there was a Raula being raised inside the house. The outer door was lying open. When we entered the house and noticed that Hari Singh having Kulhari in his hand was inflicting a blow on Harwinder Singh and uncle of Hari Singh namely Jeet Singh son of Dial Singh having Soti in his hand was inflicting a blow on Harwinder Singh when we raised Raula "Na Maro Na Mara" then Hari Singh, with in our sight Hari Singh caused the Kulhari blow holding in his hand, on the head of Harwinder Singh and both Hari Singh and Jeet Singh ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Then Harwinder Singh went inside the room while unsteady with in our sight Harwinder Singh died at the spot. In the meantime, my nephew Nirbhey Singh son of Kashmir Singh and my elder brother Kashmir Singh also reached at the spot. The motive for killing Harwinder Singh is that Hari Singh suspected that Harwinder Singh is having illicit CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 4-relations with his wife Simranjit Kaur Simmi. After leaving my brother in-law Balbir Singh and brother Kashmira Singh near the dead body and accompanied with my nephew Nirbhey Singh came to the police station for   giving   the   information.   Statement   has   been   got recorded to you. Heard and is correct. Action be taken.

5.9.2000. Sd/- Balwinder Singh Attested Officer Incharge P.S.Dhuri"

¶4After   the   registration   of   the   FIR,   the   necessary investigation was conducted by the police and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the accused in the present case. Since, the offence under Section 302 IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur. On the strength of the evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation, the trial Court found that a prima-facie case under Sections 302/34 IPC was made out against both the accused and they were charge sheeted accordingly. The accused pleaded that they had been framed and claimed trial.

¶5In support of the prosecution case, 10 witnesses were examined   before   the   trial   Court.   Dr.   Ramesh   Sharma,  Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dhuri, was examined as PW1, who had conducted   the   postmortem   examination   on   the   dead   body   of Harwinder Singh son of Balbir Singh at 08.25 a.m. on 05.09.2000. CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - ;- ?hile appearing as P?1# he stated as under:, "As per the information furnished by police, alleged to be died of injuries. The length of body was 5'.7 ½″. There was no ligature mark around neck. It was body of well built well nourished male of about 30 years, male with long hair bearing shirt, underwear, pajyama and baniyan. Rigormortis were present with postmortem staining on posterior parts. I noted the following injuries:.

¶1There is an incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x bone deep on the left hand on its palmar and lateral aspect on the base of the thumb with clotted blood underlying bone was normal.

¶2There was an incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.7 cm bone deep on the same side 1″ distal to injury No.1 underlying bone was normal.

¶3There was a bluish contusion mark on the left upper arm on further examination there was fracture of humerus in its middle.

¶4There was an incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm x bone deep on the left leg anterior aspect on its lower 1/3rd part and on further dissection there was fracture of both bones.

¶5There was an penetrating incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right leg anterior aspect on its middle part underlying bone was normal.

¶6There was an incised wound 4.5 cm x 0.8 cm x bone, deep on the right temporal region in an oblique position. On further dissection the underlying bone was fractured. CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 6-There was clotted blood was present in cranial cavity and laceration of the brain matter.

¶7There was lacerated swelling on the left mandible region bluish in colour and on further dissection there was fracture of mandible angle.

¶8There was a deep wound 1.4 cm x 0.8 cm x bane deep on right elbow region on its posterior aspect and on further dissection fracture of radial bone on its proximal part was there. Skull scalp, membrances, brain have been described. The organs of abdomen were healthy. Stomach contained about 150 mls of liquid and pasty material. All other organs were healthy. The walls, ribs cartilages, pleurae both lungs, described in injuries. In my opinion the death in this case had occurred due to shock and hemorrhage mainly due to injury No. 6 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours". He pro(ed on re)ord the original post4orte4 report ;9.PA# "hi)h "as )ondu)ted on poli)e re2uest ;9.PB. =n poli)e re2uest ;9.P$# he ga(e his opinion that the possibilit6 of injur6 *o. -as 4entioned in the post4orte4 report to be )aused "ith an a9e )ould not be ruled out.  !n his )ross,e9a4ination# he stated that he had not noted or noti)ed an6 )ut on the )lothes "orn b6 the de)eased. -. The   prose)ution   further   e9a4ined   ?asa<ha   Singh# CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 7-Draftsman, as PW2,  who prepared the site plan Ex.PE with correct marginal notes. The prosecution further examined PW3 Balwinder Singh, complainant of the case. He had reiterated the version as mentioned in the FIR Ex.PF. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house was about 1? kilometers. On that day, Balwinder Singh and Harwinder Singh came to his house first on scooter. From his house, Harwinder Singh went away by saying that he was going to meet Hari Singh. He left the house at about 08.00 p.m. He knew Hari Singh earlier. The deceased was on frequent visiting terms at the house of Hari Singh. Hari Singh was a driver on a tempo. They firstly went to the house of Kashmir Singh at about 10.45 p.m. and stayed there for 4/5 minutes and inquired only from Kashmir Singh. They went to house of Hari Singh and the door was lying open. The blows were caused to Hari Singh and Jit Singh in their presence and they had raised the alarm. Within their sight, after the injuries, the deceased went inside the room and fall on the ground near the bed. They were near the door of that room at that time. They could hold him but he fell down and they raised alarm only. Their clothes were blood stained. He further stated that Hari Singh  suspected that Harwinder singh had illicit relations with his wife. He denied the suggestion that Harwinder Singh went to the house of Hari Singh, in absence of Hari Singh and Jit Singh saw Harwinder Singh in naked condition and Jit Singh inflicted injuries to him. CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 8-

¶8The prosecution further examined PW4 Balbir Singh father of Harwinder Singh, deceased. He alongwith Harwinder Singh had gone to Balwinder Singh, his brother-in-law. He alongwith Balwinder Singh went towards the house of Hari Singh at 11.00 p.m. He also supported the statement of PW3 Balwinder Singh. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that Hari Singh was driving a tempo and some times, Hari Singh used to go out of the village. He stated that Hari Singh inflicted injury and they raised the noise, however, they did not remove the injured for any medical aid. Their clothes were blood stained. However, he and Balwinder Singh did not hand over their blood stained clothes to the police. When they raised alarm, accused ran back towards the room.

¶7The prosecution further examined PW5 HC Narinder Singh, PW6 Constable Sukhdev Singh and PW7 Head Constable Mohinderjit Singh and their testimonies were formal in nature. PW8 SI Sarabjit Singh was examined by the prosecution, who proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PF. He also remained associated during the initial investigation. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the dead body was found lying in the house of Jit Singh accused in the abadi of village Kaheru.  Jit Singh accused was a Nihang Sikh. Hari Singh accused was a driver. According to the accused, the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of Hari Singh, accused.  As per the FIR, the motive was suspected to be the said illicit relation. During his CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 9-investigation, no other motive came to his knowledge. Only the accused could tell, if in the absence of Hari Singh, the deceased used to come to the house. He did not give a note that there was a cut in the turban. He had not mentioned any cut marks on any clothes, which were worn by the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was naked, when the injuries were caused to him.

¶8The   prosecution   further   examined   PW9   Constable Harjinder  Singh, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PU. SI Gurwinder Singh was examined as PW10, who was posted as SHO, Police Station Dhuri on 05.09.2000 and was the Investigating Officer of the present case. He stated in his cross-examination that he had seen the room, where the dead body was recovered and it was on the backside of the house. He admitted that the house was situated on the main road. He did not record the statements of any person from the neighbourhood. He did not record even the statements of any person from 05.09.2000 to 11.09.2000. During investigation, it came to his notice that the deceased was having illicit relations with wife of Hari Singh and no other motive for causing death came to his notice.  It also came to his notice that Hari Singh was driver and he used to remain away from his house for number of days.

¶9After closer of the prosecution evidence, the statement of Hari Singh, accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he stated as under:- CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 10- "I am innocent. I am driver on a truck and so oftenly, I remain out of house on truck. Deceased had illicit relations with my wife and in my absence he used to visit my house. He came to my house in my absence and slept with my wife in my absence during night. My uncle Jit Singh awoke suddenly and when he saw deceased with my wife in an objectionable condition, out of anger, he caused injuries to deceased and gave information to the police. No witness was present on the spot. Police after reaching the spot, called the relations of the deceased and introduced false witnesses of the occurrence. I came to my village on the next day at about 11.00 a.m. from my tour on the truck, when the police arrested me and then implicated me in this false case".

¶10Still further#  state4ent of &it Singh "as also re)orded under Se)tion .1. +r.P.+ and he stated as under:, "I am innocent. I belong to Nihang Singh sect. Hari Singh accused is my nephew. Our houses are situated in the same enclosure. Hari Singh, my nephew is a driver of Tanker.Truck and oftenly remains out of house. Deceased Harwinder Singh developed illicit relations with the wife of Hari Singh my nephew. During the night of occurrence, my nephew Hari Singh was out of station with the Tanker and in his absence deceased Harwinder Singh came to the house of Hari Singh and during night slept with his wife in an objectionable condition. During night, I noticed presence of the deceased and when I woke up, I saw deceased with the wife of Hari Singh in an objectionable condition. On this I got enraged and in the passion of anger, I caused injuries to Harwinder CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 11-Singh, due to which he died. I went to the police station and gave information to the police about the occurrence. The police came to the spot during night. Police called the relations of the deceased and later on introduced false witnesses and implicated me and my nephew in this case falsely".

¶11Learned State counsel as well as learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the trial Court was based on presumption and surmises. The trial Court had not appreciated the evidence of PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW4 Balbir Singh in correct perspective.  In fact, the presence of both the witnesses at the place of the occurrence was natural and both the witnesses had deposed with regard to the occurrence.   Even,   the   blood   stained   weapons   of   offence   were recovered from both the accused and there was sufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the crime. The trial Court further failed to appreciate that the FIR in the present case was promptly registered and the trial Court has wrongly granted the benefit to the accused on the ground of delay in registration of the FIR also. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned judgment may be set-aside and Hari Singh, the sole surviving respondent may be convicted under Section 302 IPC.

¶12On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Hari Singh respondent vehemently argued that the impugned judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence of the settled CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 12-law and the appeal filed by the State of Punjab as well as revision petition filed by the complainant are liable to be dismissed by this Court.

¶13We have carefully heard the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the trial Court record.

¶14The FIR Ex.PF in the present case was got registered by PW3 Balwinder Singh. As per him, the occurrence had taken place at about 11.00 p.m. on 04.09.2000. He reached the police station at about 12.30 a.m. during night and the police also came to the spot at

2.30 a.m. Similarly, PW4 Balbir Singh also repeated the same facts, however, the FIR is shown to have been registered at 1.10 a.m. on

04.09.2000. According to PW8 S.I. Sarabjit Singh, the residence of SDJM, Dhuri was at about 100 yards from their police station. Thus, the special report could be delivered by the police to SDJM Dhuri in 15 to 20 minutes. Still, the special report was delivered to the Area Magistrate at about 11.00 a.m. on 05.09.2000. Thus, the delay of 12 hours in sending the special report to the Area Magistrate clearly proves that the FIR was registered in the morning of 05.09.2000 and this delay had not been satisfactorily explained and is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶15Still further, in the present case, the entire prosecution case rests on the testimonies of PW3 Balwinder Singh, complainant and PW4 Balbir Singh, who was father of Harwinder Singh, since CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 13-deceased. As per PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW4 Balbir Singh, Harwinder Singh had left their house at about 08.00 p.m. He had gone to the house of Hari Singh, which was situated at a distance of 1.5 kilometers from their house. We find that the trial Court had correctly recorded that it was doubtful that after 2.5 hours, PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW4 Balbir Singh, reached the house of accused exactly at the time when the accused were causing injuries to the deceased. PW3 Balwinder Singh was uncle of deceased, whereas PW4 Balbir Singh was father of the deceased and still they made no efforts to save Harwinder Singh from the assailants and even did not chase the accused. Even, there is noise to save Harwinder Singh but nobody from   the   neighbourhood   reached   at   the   spot.   Even,   PW10   SI Gurwinder Singh admitted that from 05.09.2000 to 11.09.2000, he did not record the statements of any person. Even, PW3 Balwinder Singh stated that their clothes were not blood stained whereas PW4 Balbir Singh stated that their clothes were blood stained, but they did not hand over the blood stained clothes to the police. Consequently, the trial Court was correct in holding that the presence of PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW4 Balbir Singh at the place of the occurrence was highly doubtful and their testimonies were rightly disbelieved. Still further, in the present case, in the FIR Ex.PF itself, the motive for causing injuries was illicit relations between Harwinder Singh and Simranjit Kaur @ Simmi wife of Hari Singh, accused.   Even, this CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 14-fact has been admitted by PW10 SI Gurwinder Singh, who was the Investigating Officer of the case and other prosecution witnesses and the police officials admitted that the deceased was having illicit relations with the wife of Hari Singh, accused and no other motive for causing death of Harwinder Singh came to their notice. Even, the prosecution witnesses admitted that Hari Singh was a driver and used to remain away from his house for number of days. The trial Court correctly recorded that Harwinder Singh would never go to the house of Hari Singh when Hari Singh would be present in the house. It appeared that in the absence of Hari Singh, Harwinder Singh had gone to his house by telling his father that he was going to meet Hari Singh. Harwinder Singh had no friendship with Hari Singh, accused and the family of Hari Singh already suspected that Harwinder Singh was having illicit relations with the wife of Hari Singh. Consequently, the defence version that Harwinder Singh had visited the house of Hari   Singh   in   his   absence   and   was   seen   by   Jit   Singh   in   an objectionable position with wife of Hari Singh seems probable. In fact, Hari Singh used to remain out of the house for several days as admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves and it appears that on getting the said information from   Simranjit Kaur @ Simmi, Harwinder Singh had visited the house of Hari Singh.

¶16The defence version also seems probable on examination of the prosecution evidence further. The postmortem examination in CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 15-the present case was conducted by PW1 Dr. Ramesh Sharma. During the postmortem, he had noticed one incised wound on the left leg, a penetrating incised wound on the right leg, a deep wound on the right elbow and an incised wound on the right temporal region. Even, PW1 Dr. Ramesh Sharma, further admitted in his cross-examination that he did not note or notice any cuts on the clothes worn by the deceased. PW8  S.I. Sarabjit Singh also stated that he did not notice any cut on the turban, when he took it in possession. Thus, it is apparent that Harwinder Singh was not wearing any clothes at the time when the injuries were caused to him, that was from the location of the injuries.  It was apparent that the clothes were worn by him must have carried corresponding cut marks. The absence of cut marks on the clothes as well as turban of Harwinder Singh would clearly establish that at the time when the injuries were caused, Harwinder Singh, deceased was not wearing any clothes on his person.

¶17Apart from that, the trial Court has correctly held that the place from where the dead body was lying also strengthens the defence version and we find no reasons to differ from the said findings. The dead body was found in the rear side of the house of the accused where a double bed was lying. Harwinder Singh had no friendly relations with Hari Singh and he had no reason to go to his bed room and it proved that he was having sexual intercourse with Simranjit Kaur @ Simmi wife of Hari Singh. Even, the occurrence CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 16-had taken place near the gate of the room and the deceased fall on the floor itself near the bed. Still further, PW8 S.I. Sarabjit Singh also admitted that there was no trail of blood at the spot and blood was lifted from the bed room itself. This clearly shows that the occurrence was not witnessed by PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW4 Balbir Singh as they had stated that the injuries were caused at a different place in the house and, thereafter, the deceased had gone to the rear side of the house. This further strengthens the defence version that Jit Singh had seen the deceased in an objectionable condition with Simranjit Kaur @ Simmi wife of Hari Singh and when he noticed both of them, he caused the injuries to the deceased. Still further, even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Hari Singh respondent had clearly stated that he used to remain out of house for several days and deceased had developed illicit relations with his wife and he used to visit his house in his absence. In his absence, Jit Singh, his uncle had seen the deceased with his wife in an objectionable position and out of anger, he had caused injuries to the deceased. Even, Jit Singh had taken a similar stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence version seems to be more probable in the present case.

¶18   While discussing the scope of interference by the Appellate Court, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the matter of  ��������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 17- �������� ����� as follo"s:, "14. As the trial Court and High Court, having appreciated the evidence on record has come to diametrically opposite conclusions, mandating herein to observe certain witness statements which may have an important bearing in this case. In the processes of appreciating the evidence at the appellate stage, we need to keep in mind the views of this Court as expressed in !�������"������������������������#$�%�&'��(�)���� ������������ ��*���(�)����+,�()-� The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW.2 and PW.6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such re.appreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a re. appreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 1<- evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse: Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous."

11.  !n Ra=e%8 Ba53:a: Do%8% >' -tate of G34a6at1 1))7(3) RCR (C6%=%na:) 62& 1))6 C6%:# 2<671 this +ourt obser(ed as under: "This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question is the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed."

¶20  !n (ie" of the abo(e dis)ussion and the la" laid do"n b6 the HonEble Supre4e +ourt# "e ha(e no hesitation to hold that the CRA-D-637-DBA of 2003 an2 connecte2 ca%e        - 19-findings recorded by the trial Court are based on correct appreciation of material on record and we find no reasons to overturn the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. Consequently, impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, are ordered to be upheld.

¶21Finding   no   merits,  CRA-D-637-DBA   of   2003   and CRR-931-2003 are hereby ordered to be dismissed.

¶22All   pending   applications,   if   any,   are   disposed   off, accordingly.

¶23Trial Court record be sent back to the trial Court.

¶24All concerned may be intimated. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (N.S.SHE5HAWAT)

26.07.2024                JUDGE ���������