Criminal Revision No.662 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.662 of 1996 Date of decision: February 18, 2008 Bachan Singh … Petitioner Versus Parkash Singh & Others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.S.Jatana, Advocate for petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) That the present revision petition is directed against the acquittal of Parkash Singh, Bira Singh and Boota Singh. Parkash Singh, Bira Singh and Boota Singh were nominated as accused by the complainant Bachan Singh in a statement made before SI Darshan Singh and a case FIR No.30 dated 14.03.1994 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Barnala under section 302/120-B/34/201 IPC. Bachan Singh complainant PW-2 stated before SI Darshan Singh PW-10 that on 12th March, 1994, his son Malkiat Singh was called by Bira Singh accused respondent in order to do the electric repair of the tobewell motor. It is stated that Malkiat Singh deceased accompanied Bira Singh to the motor of Boota Singh. Bachan Singh complainant PW-2 suspected that his son has been done to death by accused respondent. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the present case is of circumstancial evidence and the chain of evidence is not complete. It has been stated that the trial Court came to the conclusion that Gurdev Singh PW-3 and Inderjit Singh PW-5, who were examined to prove extra- judicial confession suffered by the accused have not supported the Criminal Revision No.662 of 1996 2 prosecution. The Court also held that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that from the statement of PW-2 Bachan Singh, it is apparent that motive has been fabricated and there is an improvement from the original version. The recoveries have also been disbelieved. As no justification was found for the accused to conceal, for a long time, the blood stained axe, the reasonings given by trial Court cannot be said to suffer from illegality or perversity. The Hon'ble apex Court has taken consistent view in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another; D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352); Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444; Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907 that high Court will not re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence in a revisional Court to disturb the finding of the Court below in case acquittal is based on well founded reasons. Therefore, no interference is called for. Present revision petition is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 18, 2008. rps