In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2755 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:March 02, 2009 Kehar Singh ---Petitioner versus Bhag Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Vivek Singla,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were tried for an offence under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in FIR No. 81 dated 15.7.2000 under Sections 326, 325, 324, 325, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Garhshankar. Vide judgment dated 28.4.2006, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar acquitted respondents No. 1 to 6 of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present revision petition by the complainant. Prosecution story in brief, as notice by the trial court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.7.2000, an MLR in respect of Kehar Singh was received by HC Crl. Revision No.2755 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Balwinder Singh who visited the Civil Hospital, Garhshankar from where he came to know that the patient Kehar Singh has been referred to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. ASI Ram Nath along with some other police officials reached at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur obtained the opinion of doctor regarding fitness of patient Kehar Singh and he recorded that statement of Kehar Singh in which Kehar Singh complainant has stated that on 14.7.2000 he was coming back from Chandigarh after attending the case in High Court and when at about 7.00 p.m. he reached near his “Bara” Bhag Singh who was armed with Gandasim, Raghbir Singh armed with dang, Kesar Singh armed with Gandasi, Rajinder armed with Dang, Chhindo armed with Daat, Dev armed with Dang, Dharam Singh armed with Datt, came there and raised lalkara to caught hold of him and to teach a lesson for filing civil suit against them. Dharam Singh gave a Daat blow which hit on the right hand thumb of the complainant. Bhag Singh gave his Gandasi blow which hit on the left side of head of the complainant. Then Kesar Singh gave his Gandasi blow which hit on the back side of head of the complainant. Accused Chhindo gave daat blow from its reverse side which hit on the leg of the complainant. Rajinder Singh gave dang blow which hit on the head of the complainant. Dev Singh also gave his dang blow which hit on the head of the complainant. Raghbir Singh also gave his dang blow which hit on the right hand and thereafter the complainant Crl. Revision No.2755 of 2008 (O&M) -3- fell down on the ground and in that position all the accused gave beating to the complainant with their respective weapons. The complainant has further stated that Mehar Singh and Baldev Singh resident of village Pensra who were standing in the fields had seen the occurrence. The complainant raised hue and cry which attracted Malook Singh brother of the complainant and in the mean time Mehar Singh and Baldev Singh also came there who saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused. The motive behind the occurrence as per the complainant is that there is some civil litigation pending between the complainant and the accused persons. Later on the complainant was taken to the civil hospital where he was medically examined by the doctors. On the basis of above statement of the complainant, FIR, of the present case was recorded. In terms of which investigation was initiated during the course of which the accused were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After competition of all the formalities of investigation, challan was prepared and presented before the court against the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court had erred in acquitting respondents No. 1 to 6 of the charge framed against them. Petitioner had been successful in proving his case. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 14.7.2000 at 7-00 p.m. However, FIR was registered on 15.7.2000 at 9.30 a.m. Petitioner had deposed that police had met him in the hospital on the day of Crl. Revision No.2755 of 2008 (O&M) -4- occurrence itself and he had handed over his clothes to the police. However, petitioner did not immediately make his statement before the police. Learned trial court has observed that there was no explanation as to why the FIR, in question, was registered after such a long delay. Petitioner when he appeared in the witness box as PW-2 also admitted that he had been convicted in a criminal case about 20/25 years ago. There are civil and criminal litigation between the parties up to this Court. Petitioners was undergoing life imprisonment in a murder case. Thus, the petitioner has enmity against the family of respondent No. 1 Bhag Singh due to land dispute and civil litigation pending between them. In these circumstances, learned trial court has rightly observed that in the absence of any eye witness corroboration, the sole testimony of Kehar Singh-petitioner could not be relied upon. Prosecution had examined PW-5 Baldev Singh to corroborate statement of the petitioner. However, the said witness was disbelieved by the trial court as he had given different place of venue of occurrence. Learned trial court has also discussed various discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, delay in lodging the FIR, is fatal to the prosecution case. Learned trial court had, thus, rightly acquitted respondents No. 1 to 6 of the charge framed against them. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the Crl. Revision No.2755 of 2008 (O&M) -5- instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned of the trial court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE March 02, 2009 PARAMJIT