-1- Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 8 , 2010. Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Ram Pal and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the accused-respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition has been filed by Bhupinder Singh (complainant) against the judgment dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Karnal, whereby accused-respondents Ram Pal, Rishi Pal, Sunil, -2- Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. Vikram and Mamu Ram were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and accused-respondents Krishna, Kesar, Saroj and Sunita were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 452 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Code by giving them the benefit of doubt. The instant case was registered at the instance of petitioner-complainant Bhupinder Singh. The complainant had a common wall with accused-respondent Mamu Ram. About five/six months prior to the present occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between the complainant and Mamu Ram with regard to the intervening wall situated between the houses of the parties. The wall of Manu Ram had fallen. The complainant-party wanted to construct the wall on their own portion. With the intervention of the `Panchayat', the wall was got constructed. Mamu Ram etc. were having grudge against the complainant. The matter was compromised at Police Post, Taraori. The complainant had also placed glass pieces on the wall. This act of the complainant had further increased the grudge of the accused. On 10.10.2000 at about 7 A.M, Som Parkash (since deceased), father of the complainant, was present in the street going in front of his house. At that time accused Rishi Pal and Sunil gave a `Lalkara' and abused and teased Som Parkash, who, in order to save himself, reached in his `Naura'. Accused Ram Pal, Rishi Pal and Sunil and -3- Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. their father Mamu Ram and Vikram accused followed Som Parkash to his `Naura', caught him and made him to fall down. They gave fist blows and thrust blows by fists to Som Parkash. In the meanwhile, accused Krishna wife of Mamu Ram, Kesar wife of Moti Ram, Sunita daughter of Mamu Ram and Saroj daughter of Moti Ram also reached there and caught hold of the complainant's mother and started beating her. The complainant tried to rescue his father, whereupon accused Sunil caught hold of the complainant and gave him slaps and fist blows. The accused continued beating the complainant's father with slaps and fist blows. The death of Som Parkash took place at the spot due to fist, slaps and kick blows. The noise raised by the members of the complainant party also attracted Balbir and Jai Pal to the spot. They rescued the complainant and his mother from the clutches of the accused. A number of persons from the village had also gathered at the spot. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant and Rajeshwar son of Gian Chand took the deceased to General Hospital, Karnal. The accused-respondents were arrested during investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented. The learned trial Judge, after recording evidence and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused -4- Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. and, accordingly, acquitted them, as mentioned above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In this case Dr. R.M. Singh (P.W.2),in the company of Dr. Rakesh Mittal, had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Som Parkash. In his cross-examination, he stated that possibility of the death in this case having been caused due to heart failure on account of chronic ischemic disease could not be ruled out. Dr. R.M. Singh (P.W.2) further deposed that as there was no injury on the dead body to find out the cause of death, the viscera including full portion of the heart was sent inter alia for histopathological test and according to the finding of histopathological report (Exhibit P.V) condition of the degeneration and hardening of the heart and other coronary arteries was found and this was a chronic process leading to the pathological changes of the hart and its vessel and this report is a pointer to the patient having died because of heart failure. This Doctor further added that the heart attack/heart failure could take place even without any previous warning and without blows or fight although these things can precipitate the event leading to heart failure. However, the absence of any mark of injury on chest or any other part of the body of the deceased rules out, to a great extent, that blows or fight etc. precipitated in case of Som Parkash leading to his heart failure. Besides, as per complainant Bhupinder Singh -5- Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. (P.W.3), he had also received injuries in the occurrence. However, the prosecution did not examine any Doctor who had medico- legally examined Bhupinder Singh nor he (Bhupinder Singh) stated that he had got himself medico-legally examined. This fact goes a long way to show that he was not present at the spot. Still further, complainant Bhupinder Singh (P.W.3) stated that his mother Rajbala had been given fist and kick blows by accused- respondents Krishna, Kesar, Saroj and Sunita. If it were so, Smt. Rajbala would have received several marks of injuries, but as found from the testimony of Dr.Rajnikant (P.W.1), who medico- legally examined her on 11.10.2000, only one abrasion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm over lateral aspect of the left forearm and mid region was observed. The rest two injuries were simply mentioned as complaint of pain. Dr.Rajnikant (P.W.1) in his cross-examination stated that the minor injuries on the person of Smt.Rajbala could have been suffered at a friendly hand. The presence of Jai Pal (P.W.7) at the spot is also doubtful. According to Bhupinder Singh (P.W.3), Jai Pal (P.W.7) had been attracted to the spot when the male accused had already given fist and kick blows etc. to his father Som Parkash in his `Naura'. In other words, according to Bhupinder Singh (P.W.3), Jai Pal (P.W.7) had reached after the occurrence had taken place. However, Jai Pal (P.W.7), in his examination-in-chief, when he tried to support the prosecution version, he deposed having seen whole of the occurrence. However, in his cross-examination Jai Pal -6- Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. (P.W.7) stated that at the time when the abuses were being hurled to the deceased, he was not present there. After admitting this, he gave the third version that at that time he was in the lane and two houses were in between. He further stated that he saw the deceased and the accused for the first time inside the `Naura' of Som Parkash and he could not name even any one of the ten/twelve persons of the surrounding neighbourhood who had gathered at the spot before the accused left the spot. If Jai Pal (P.W.7) would have been present at the spot and would have seen the occurrence, there was no question of his testimony being self- contradictory and vague. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 61: 2002 Cri.L.J 3788: 2002 A.I.R (SC) 2907: 2002 (3) Crimes 130, the apex Court observed that High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. It was further observed that High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court except to prevent miscarriage of justice. The facts noticed above do not warrant conversion of the finding of acquittal, recorded -7- Criminal Revision No.1600 of 2003. by the trial Court, into one of conviction. For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the impugned judgment and dismiss the revision petition. March 8 , 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE