Salinder Singh vs Rajbir And Anr

1
CRA-AD-104-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
230
CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)
Reserved on : 08.10.2026
Pronounced on: 03.11.2026
Uploaded on: 04.11.2026

Whether only operative part of the
judgment is pronounced or the full
judgment is pronounced.

Operative Part/Full judgment


Salinder Singh ...Appellant

VERSUS

Rajbir Singh and another ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER MALIK

Present :- Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*

RAVINDER MALIK, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 23.12.2024 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in Sessions Case No.68 of 2023 arising
out of FIR No.530 dated 04.12.2020 under Sections 435 and 436 IPC,
registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, whereby
respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 435 and
436 IPC and, in the alternative, under Section 457 IPC.
2. The prosecution was set in motion on the complaint (Ex. P3) of
the appellant (PW4) made on 27.11.2020, wherein he stated that he had
tethered his cattle and stored fodder/stubble in an enclosure (bara) of his house
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

2


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


at Village Amin. Around 12:30 AM the fodder/stubble was set on fire, as a
result of which a cooler, a part of the verandah, the roof of which was made of
wooden rafters, and other articles were burnt, causing him a loss of about
Rs.6,000/- and he suspects his elder brother Rajbir, residing in the adjoining
house, with whom his relations were strained and against whom several civil
and criminal cases were pending to have committed the crime.
3. On the said complaint, DDR No. 15 dated 27.11.2020 was
recorded by HC Jugal Kishore (PW9). The appellant/complainant met the
police again on 28.11.2020 with a supplementary statement that his wife Saroj
Bala (PW1), who had woken up to answer the call of nature, had seen the
accused setting the fodder on fire and running away. The FIR (Ex. P1),
however, came to be registered on 04.12.2020. On 05.12.2020, ASI Sudesh
Kumar (PW8) lifted ashes from three places in the corridor of the complainant's
house, sealed them (Ex. P4), prepared the rough site plan (Ex. P7) and took
photographs (Ex. P8 to Ex. P12). The statement of PW1 under Section 161
Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.12.2020. Upon completion of investigation, the
challan was presented, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on
20.03.2023.
4. On 03.04.2023 charges were framed against the accused under
Sections 435 and 436 IPC, with an alternate charge under Section 457 IPC, to
which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses,
including the eye-witness PW1 Saroj Bala (wife of the complainant), PW2
Isham Singh (brother of the complainant and the accused), PW4 Salinder Singh
(complainant), the investigating officials PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW9, and
PW10 Shri Raj Kumar, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL Madhuban, whose
report is Ex.P15.
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

3


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded
false implication owing to prior enmity and civil/criminal litigation, and
examined his mother Smt. Bimla as DW1, who deposed that the complainant
had himself set his fodder on fire to pressurise the accused into a compromise
in the cross FIRs No.256/2020 and No.259/2020.
6. Smt. Saroj Bala w/o Salinder Singh (complainant) while
appearing as PW1 during her examination-in-chief deposed that on the
intervening night of 26/27.11.2020, she woke up to answer the call of nature
and saw the accused Rajbir setting fire to the fodder/stubble lying in the
enclosure earmarked for the said purpose in the house and after which he fled
away. Immediately, after the incident, upon hearing her screams, her husband
and other family members woke up. She further deposed that accused had prior
enmity with her husband on account of a land dispute and only to settle scores,
he (accused) had set fodder/stubble and other household articles on fire. She
also alleged to have suffered financial losses running in lacs and identified
photographs Mark A to Mark E as those of her house. In her cross-
examination, she had admitted that in 2012, she had lodged a complaint against
accused Rajbir and her mother-in-law Bimla Devi on the ground of harassment
for bringing insufficient dowry. On the very same day, her mother-in-law had
filed a cross complaint against her, her husband and brother-in-law Isham
Singh alleging that aforesaid persons wanted to encroach over the land that had
fallen to the share of third son i.e. accused Rajbir. Furthermore, in 2013, Bimla
Devi filed another complaint against them on similar set of allegations.
However, the witness was not able to point out as to whether a settlement dated
22.06.2015, which is on record, had been arrived at between the three brothers
and their mother. According to PW1, she had moved a complaint on
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

4


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


12.02.2020 alleging that the accused Rajbir had evil eye on her as he tried to
violate her person and attempted to do objectionable acts with her two
daughters. She further admitted that on 01.03.2023, allegations were levelled
by her husband Salinder Singh against Rajbir and his wife vide Ex.D2.
According to her, the fire had lasted for 4/5 days, however, no fire brigade
arrived at the site. Even the police authorities did not call any fire brigade;
instead the people gathered at the spot and attempted to extinguish the fire.
PW1 also denied the contents of Ex.D3 wherein police authorities had noted
that a DDR was lodged and investigation was carried out on the basis of
complaint lodged by Salinder Singh. In that report, SHO had concluded that
allegations levelled against the accused were incorrect and the actual cause of
fire to the fodder/stubble could not be ascertained.
7. Sh. Isham Singh, brother of the complainant, appeared as PW2
and deposed that on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2020, his brother
Salinder Singh (complainant) had telephonically informed him about the
incident. Thereafter, he rushed to the spot and saw that neighbours were trying
to extinguish the fire. At that point in time, Saroj Bala, wife of his brother,
informed him that the accused Rajbir had set ‘Bara’ on fire where fodder and
other household articles were lying. During his cross-examination, PW2 Isham
Singh pointed out that the distance between his house and that of house of
complainant is about two acres and the height of common wall between the
house of accused Rajbir and the complainant is about 15 feet. He also admitted
that his mother Bimla Devi had moved various complaints against him, his
brother Salinder Singh and Saroj Bala. He further admitted that he had also
filed complaint against his mother Bimla Devi.
8. The appellant/complainant Salinder Singh, while appearing as
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

5


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


PW4 in his examination-in-chief had reiterated the contents of complaint Ex.P3
and highlighted the steps taken by the investigating officer. During his cross-
examination, he admitted that initially he had only suspected his brother though
subsequently improved his version by alleging that his wife Saroj Bala had seen
the accused setting the fodder/stubble on fire. He also admitted that at his
instance, FIR No.256/2020 was registered against Rajbir under Sections 323,
324, 326, 34 IPC while FIR No.259/2020 was registered against him and others
for offences under Sections 326, 323, 506 and 34 IPC, both pertaining to the
same incident. Furthermore, PW4 was unable to point out whether his mother
had moved application Ex.D3 against him though subsequently stated that his
mother did not give him any share in the land. The appellant/complainant
expressed his inability to point out whether application Mark D2 given by his
mother against him, his wife Saroj Bala and brother Isham Singh is true and
correct though added that his wife had filed a complaint against the accused and
his mother Bimla Devi levelling allegation of ill treatment for demand of
dowry. When document Mark-D4 (copy of Panchayati settlement) dated
22.06.2025 was put to him, he maintained that he had affixed his signatures
thereupon at the instance of his mother. He also admitted that DDR No.14
dated 02.03.2023 u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against him and his
brother Isham Singh as counter-blast to the complaint moved by him against
Rajbir. He expressed his inability to point out anything about Ex.D3. On asking
about the time of incident, he admitted that he had given phone call at about
1:30 am and the police had arrived at the spot, after 10 minutes thereafter. He
further admitted that neither he nor police officials called fire brigade and the
neighbors, who had gathered at the spot had extinguished the fire.
9. Shri Raj Kumar, Assistant Director (Chemistry), Forensic
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

6


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal, appeared as PW10 and admitted that
he prepared report Ex.P15, after applying Gas Chromatography Technique
upon the parcels produced before him.
10. Ct. Krishan Kumar No.165/KKR, MHC, PS Pehowa, stepped into
the witness box as PW5 and elaborated upon various steps taken by I.O. in the
investigation of case in his presence, such as arresting accused, recording his
disclosure statement Ex.P5 and getting demarcated the place of incident by
accused vide Ex. P6. During cross-examination, this witness admitted that no
public person was joined by the Investigating Officer as witness to the case
proceedings at any stage of investigation. He further clarified that though, I.O.
had tried to join private persons but they had showed their helplessness.
However, he was unable to point out their names and addresses.
11. After conclusion of the evidence, all the incriminating facts and
circumstances appearing in the evidence were put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
to which he pleaded his innocence and stated that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant, due to previous
enmity. He did not set the house of complainant on fire. In order to put pressure
upon him qua previous civil as well as criminal litigation, present false case
was got registered against him by appellant/complainant.
12. In support of his case, accused examined his mother Smt. Bimla,
wife of late Shri Rati Ram, r/o Village Ajrana Kalan, District Kurukshetra, who
appeared as DW1 and deposed that four months ago, her two sons namely
Isham Singh (PW2) and Salinder (complainant, PW1) had assaulted her third
son Rajbir (accused) and thus, a case was registered against them. The injured
was shifted to hospital for medical treatment. She further deposed that after
four months of registration of the said case, Salinder Singh (complainant)
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

7


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


himself set the fodder etc. on fire so as to pressurize Rajbir (accused) to enter
into compromise. On hearing hue and cry, she had woken up her son Rajbir
(accused). According to her, present case has been falsely registered against her
son Rajbir. She further alleged that her two sons namely Isham Singh and
Salinder Singh are habitual of levelling false allegations against her third son
Rajbir. During her cross-examination as DW1, she stated that her husband died
about 15 years ago, who owned about 8/9 acres of land, out of which 4 acres
were inherited by her husband from his ancestors and the remaining land was
his self-acquired property. She has further stated that she had three sons and
three daughters, however, her two daughters have passed away. She admitted
that after the death of her husband, the land owned by him, was equally
distributed between her sons. She has also stated that her husband had executed
a Will during his life time mentioning therein that during his life time, the land
belongs to him and that after his death, the same would be equally distributed
between his three sons. DW1 further stated that the aforesaid was challenged
by her two sons namely Salinder Singh and Isham Singh before the Civil Court
and the same was declared to be illegal, null and void. Consequently, the land
was divided equally between seven legal heirs, including herself. DW1 Bimla
further admitted that she had transferred her share of land to her son Rajbir
(accused), as she has been residing with him since long and he serves her well.
She, however, was not able to point out whether any case of theft had been
registered against her son Rajbir, or that he had remained in custody for about
three months. She maintained that her son Isham Singh has the largest portion
of the land, followed by Rajbir and then Salinder Singh (present complainant).
13. After hearing the counsels for the parties and taking into
consideration all the material facts and evidence led by them, the learned
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

8


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


Sessions Judge acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 23.12.2024, inter
alia, on the grounds that (i) the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of
seven days; (ii) the alleged supplementary statement of 28.11.2020 was not on
the record; (iii) the first version (Ex. P3) attributed only suspicion to the
accused, and the claim of PW1 having seen the occurrence surfaced for the first
time in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 05.12.2020; (iv) the police
inquiry report Ex. D3 dated 30.11.2020 had found the accused not being
involved; (v) none of the neighbours, stated to have assisted in extinguishing
the fire, was examined; (vi) the FSL report Ex. P15 did not detect petrol,
kerosene, diesel or their residue; and (vii) the parties are admittedly at
loggerheads with multiple cross-cases pending.
14. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2024,
the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
impugned judgment suffers from a patent error of law and is based on surmises
and conjectures. PW1 Saroj Bala is a natural eye-witness who saw the accused
setting the fodder on fire at about 12:30 AM on the intervening night of
26/27.11.2020 and had raised an alarm about the same and she has consistently
named the accused in her testimony which has not been shaken in the cross-
examination. He submits that from the testimony of PW1, it is proved that the
accused on 25.11.2020 had threatened the appellant to set his house on fire.
16. Learned counsel further contends that the version of PW1 Smt.
Saroj Bala stands corroborated by the testimonies of PW2 Isham Singh, PW4
the complainant, and PW8 the investigation officer. He also contends that the
accused is a person of a questionable character with bad antecedents, against
whom several criminal cases are registered.
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

9


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


17. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that
the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal, and that the matter may
be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence on record.
18. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
State and have gone through the material available on record, including the
impugned judgment and the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW4 annexed as
Annexures A-1 to A-3, with their able assistance.
19. The star witness in the present case put forth by the prosecution is
PW1 Saroj Bala, who is allegedly the only eye witness of the entire incident.
She has deposed in her statement that when she saw respondent/accused setting
fodder/stubble on fire, she immediately screamed, due to which, her husband
and other family members woke up and came out, neighbours gathered and her
brother-in-law Isham Singh (PW-2) also reached the spot upon being intimated,
and together, they all tried to douse the fire. However, the initial complaint
dated 27.11.2020 (Ex. P3) moved by the appellant Salinder does not disclose
the fact that his wife PW1 Saroj Bala was the eye witness of the entire incident.
Rather, the said fact was disclosed subsequently by the complainant in his
supplementary statement whereas in her deposition as PW1, she has
categorically mentioned that upon hearing her scream, her husband, who is the
appellant herein, had come out. Thus, it can be inferred that the appellant was
aware of the fact of his wife PW1, being the eye witness to the incident. No
explanation has been advanced as to why such material fact was withheld by
the appellant at the time of moving the complaint Ex. P3. Rather, he had merely
stated in the said complaint that he suspects that his brother accused Rajbir had
committed the offence. Therefore, the conduct of the complainant in omitting to
disclose such crucial information casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution’s
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

10


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


case.
20. Further, PW1 Saroj Bala has stated in her cross examination, that
the fire started at around 12:30-1 AM and continued till 4-5 AM. It is unnatural
that despite being in such a precarious situation where there was a possibility of
the house of the appellant being destroyed, no fire brigade or emergency
services were called for. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a fire which continued
for 4-5 hours, did not spread to other parts of the house of the appellant.
Though the case of the prosecution majorly rests on this particular witness who
is the only direct witness in the case, however, the fact that she is an interested
witness cannot be negated. No doubt that the testimony of a witness should not
be disregarded or deemed less credible for the fact that such witness is related
or interested in the case in some manner, but the testimony of such witness is to
be carefully examined. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana 2026 SCC Online 852 has observed thus:
“7.5 It is true that the court is not expected to
mechanically reject the evidence of a witness on the
ground that the witness is a partisan witness or relative.
This Court in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1964] 8
SCR 133, speaking through a five-judge bench, put a
note of caution in appreciating the evidence given by an
interested witness.
7.6. The following observations could be applied in the
present case:
'.... There is no doubt that when a criminal court has
to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are
partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in
weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are
discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the
evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or not the
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

11


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all
matters which must be taken into account...'
8. In Bhaskarrao and Others v. State of Maharashtra,
(2018) 6 SCC 591, this Court highlighted that a witness
who has a strong interest in the result should not be
allowed to be weighed on the same scales with those who
do not have such interest in the outcome. Treating these
two categories at par, stated the court, would open the
doors for the court to arrive at a perverted or distorted
truth. It was observed, 'This sound rule which remains
the bulwark of this system, and which determines the
value of evidence derived from such sources, needs to be
cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There is
no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness
must affect his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover,
under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a
position to judge correctly, even if they earnestly desire
to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide
evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves his
interest. Under such influences, man will, even though
not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify
others, and provide favourable colour.”

21. Thus, when the testimony of PW 1 is seen in light of the facts that
the original complaint lacks mention of the fact of PW 1 being the eye witness,
the fact that despite its revelation in the subsequently filed supplementary
statement, the FIR was registered much later and the fact that the said
supplementary statement has not been proved on record by the prosecution, as
well as the fact that there exists enmity among the members of the family in
pursuance of which various civil and criminal proceedings have been instituted
by both parties against each other, shakes the credibility and reliability of the
witness, thereby rendering his testimony unworthy of being treated as that of a
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

12


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


witness of sterling quality.
22. Moreover, the brother of the complainant Isham Singh while
deposing as PW2, stated that when he reached the house of the complainant,
PW1-Saroj Bala told him that the respondent/accused Rajbir has caused the
fire. Hence, the entire evidence tendered by Isham Singh PW2 would fall under
the category of hearsay evidence and would not be of much significance in
supporting the case of the prosecution.
23. It is also evident from the record that many people including, the
family members of the appellant as well as the neighbours, gathered at the
place of occurrence after hearing the screams of Saroj Bala and made efforts to
douse the fire. However, no independent witness has been examined in this
case. Though, prosecution witnesses namely PW5 Ct. Krishna Kumar, PW7
Subhash Chandra and PW9 Jugal Kishore have deposed in sync that sincere
efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to bring on board independent
witnesses who were present at the spot on the intervening night of the incident,
however, the names and details of such persons are missing in the evidence on
record. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses have further deposed that they
have not even recorded the same in the case diary. This makes this Court
circumspect about the investigation in the present case. It is for the police to
ensure that the investigation in a case is undertaken in such a manner so as to
obviate any possibility of its case not being proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Once the prosecution fails on this count, the inevitable result would be that the
accused, even if guilty, has to be extended the benefit of doubt.
24. PW10 Raj Kumar, Assistant Director (Chemistry), Forensic
Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal proved the FSL report Ex. P15 and
deposed that he prepared the report after applying Gas Chromatography
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

13


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


Technique. The said report does not favour the case of the prosecution as it
records the absence of any inflammable substance including, petrol, kerosene,
diesel or their residue in the collected samples. Therefore, the scientific
evidence also does not instill faith in the prosecution’s case and fails to
convince this Court to interfere and reverse the findings of the learned trial
Court.
25. It is noticed by us from the records that the present case is a result
of an admitted enmity among the family members including, the appellant and
the respondent/accused so much so that several cases of civil and criminal
nature had been instituted by them against each other which includes, a
partition suit decided in favor of the respondent accused Rajbir, Cross FIRs u/s
323, 234, 326 arising out of same incident, various complaints filed by Saroj
Bala against the respondent accused for sexual harassment towards her and her
daughters, various complaints by mother of the appellant against him and his
wife. This further assumes significance in light of the fact that the present FIR
was delayed by 7 days and prior to the lodging of the FIR, vide report Ex. D3,
it was recorded by the police, after making independent inquiries that a prima
facie case against Rajbir was not made out. In this regard, no
explanation/evidence has been put forth by the prosecution as to how thence the
present FIR came to be registered.
26. In a nutshell, it would be apt to observe here that in the cases
involving a direct witness, whether or not an interested one, a conviction solely
on the basis of the testimony of the said direct witness is possible provided it
proves to be highly consistent and reliable. However, it is safer to look for
corroborative evidence when such testimony does not seem convincing or in
tune with other evidences available on record. In the present case, where the
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

14


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


investigation seems to be faulty, where there is absence of any other witness to
support the testimony of direct witness whose version in itself seems unreliable
and where there is no scientific evidence to support the case of the prosecution,
the only just approach is to rule that the prosecution has not been able to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubts.
27. When considered cumulatively, the entire case of the prosecution
appears to be a sham attempt to frivolously trap the respondent accused in a
criminal proceeding so as to coerce him to give in to whatsoever motive the
appellant seeks to achieve. The investigation in the present case is lopsided, the
evidence proved by the prosecution is insufficient and unreliable, and the
surrounding facts are further indicative of the improbabilities inherent in the
prosecution’s case. In such a situation, it is unsafe to deduce that there is
substance in the case of the prosecution so as to conclusively establish the guilt
of the respondent accused. Thus, it is only apposite that a benefit of doubt is
extended to the respondent accused in view of the fact that the prosecution has
failed to effectively rebut the presumption of innocence existing in the favour
of the accused. It is trite law that the criminal liability cannot be attached to an
accused until his guilt is established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubts.
28. The presumption of innocence of the respondent accused in the
present case is further strengthened by his acquittal by the learned trial Court
resulting in a double presumption of innocence in his favour. Reference in this
regard can be made to the judgment in case of “ Raj Pal Singh v. Rajveer”
2026(1) RCR(Criminal) 177 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as
thus:
9.2 It is a well-settled principle enunciated by
series of judgments of this Court that there must exist
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

15


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


"substantial and compelling reasons" to upset the
acquittal. Once the court acquits the accused, the
presumption of innocence is reinforced. Thereafter, the
interference by the appellate court would be minimal and
has to be guided by strong and cogent reasons. Reversal
of acquittal should not be a matter of course just because
the other view is considered to be possible by the
appellate court. Even when the appellate court re-
appreciates the evidence while dealing with the judgment
and order of acquittal, the innocence attributed to the
accused acquitted from the charges of offences would be
a weighty rebuttable factor.
9.4 In Chandrappa and Others v. State of
Karnataka, after elaborate discussion as to how the
appellate court should approach the order of acquittal
while exercising appellate jurisdiction, certain principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court to be
exercised against an order of acquittal, were laid down,
"(i) An appellate court has full power to review, re-
appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded. (ii) The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (iii)
Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review
the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (iv) An
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

16


CRA-AD-104-2025(O&M)


appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial court. (v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court."

29. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality,
impropriety, perversity or misappreciation of evidence in the findings recorded
and conclusions drawn by learned trial court. Resultantly, finding no merit in
the present appeal, the same is, accordingly, dismissed .
30. The judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2023 (CNR No.
HRKU01-002294-2023), arising out of FIR No. 530 dated 04.12.2020 under
Sections 435 and 436 IPC and in the alternative, under Section 457 IPC,
registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, thereby
acquitting the respondent no.1, is hereby affirmed .


(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (RAVINDER MALIK)
JUDGE JUDGE
03. 11.2026
Kapil/Sonia


Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SONIA BURA
2026.11.04 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh