Crl. Revision No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 10, 2011 Jasvir Kaur ...... Petitioner Versus Jaspal Singh and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Mohinder Singh Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) CRM No.61706 of 2009 Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Delay of 23 days is condoned. Main Case Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 10.5.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Samana, by virtue of which the accused respondents were acquitted for an offence under Sections 441/442/452/506/509/148/149/120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). Not satisfied with the impugned judgment, the State of Punjab filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which was Crl. Revision No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M) 2 dismissed vide judgment dated 17.3.2009. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the complainant-petitioner has filed the present revision petition, before this Court. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that Jasbir Kaur wife of Mandeep Singh made a statement before the police that on 14.12.2002 at about 3 PM she alongwith her sister-in-law Jaswinder Kaur wife of Hardeep Singh were present in the house. Jaspal Singh and Deba Ram alongwith three other boys came in front of their house armed with dangs and gandasis and entered into their house and started abusing them. On seeing them, she and Jaswinder Kaur confined themselves in a room and locked the door from inside. The aforesaid persons came in the court yard of their house and started hitting on the standing Kikkar with their respective weapons. It is further alleged that Deba Ram removed his wearing Chaddar on his wrist and became naked and also starting abusing. She also stated that on hearing the noise, the ladies from the neighbourhood and Ex-sarpanch namely Bakhtaur Singh came at the spot and on seeing them, all the accused persons ran away from the spot and while going, they also threatened the complainant that they will again come and teach them a lesson. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant present case was registered against the accused persons. During the investigation, accused were arrested and statements of witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation and all other necessary formalities, the challan against the accused was presented in the court. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 452/506 IPC against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined as many as four witnesses. Statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.) were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations Crl. Revision No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M) 3 levelled against them and pleaded for innocence. After hearing the learned State counsel as well as the learned defence counsel, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents No. 1 to 6. State of Punjab filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17.3.2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. After going through the record, I find that the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the record has held as under :- “Keeping in view the aforesaid point, I thoroughly scanned the statement of PW1 Jasbir Kaur and in her examination-in-chief time of occurrence deposed by her was 1 PM, whereas in her original statement Ex. PA given to Investigating Officer, time of occurrence had been disclosed 3 PM. Further more, in her statement Ex. PA recorded by Investigating Officer, she categorically deposed that one Jaspal Singh and Deba Ram alongwith three other boys entered into their house, while they were armed with gandasis and dangs, but when she appeared in the court she disclosed the names of other persons, without explaining how she came to know the names of other three persons i.e. Jagir Ram, Ramphal and Pritam Ram. Even the name of 6th accused has not been mentioned in her original statement Ex.PA, nor his role is explained by complainant in her statement recorded in court. Further, in her cross examination she deposed that she does not know accused Pritam Ram and she also does not know father’s name of Pritam Ram and further deposed that prior to said incident she never saw him, nor she knew him. The name Crl. Revision No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M) 4 of Pritam Ram was came to know from the police. She further deposed that except Ex-sarpanch Bakhtaur Singh she could not tell the names of other ladies, who gathered at the time of occurrence. It is strange that complainant is not aware of names of ladies, who are neighbourers of complainant. She further deposed in her cross examination at page 5 that except name of Deba Ram and Jaspal Singh, names of other accused have been incorporated in her statement by the police themselves. She further deposed at page 3 that no occurrence took place at 3 PM, if so, then why she disclosed the time 3 PM in her statement. If we consider the whole testimony of sole witness Jasbir Kaur, then it is clear that it is not impressive, rather it creates a doubt regarding incident in question. So, when situation is the, then I think court is to hesitate to rely upon the solitary statement of witnesses.” Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Akalu Ahir reported in 1973(3) SCC 583 in para 8 has observed as under: - “...........the revision from an order of acquittal, should appropriately refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. .............It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court in the court of trial, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct the retrial of the acquittal accused persons. From the very nature of this power, it should be exercised in exceptional cases and with great care and caution. Trials are not to be lightly set aside when such order expose the accused persons to a fresh trial with all its consequential harassment. This matter is not res integra and had indeed been dealt with by this court at least in the four cases noticed by the High Court. Crl. Revision No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M) 5 ...............It makes all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering re-trial. No doubt, in the opinion of this court no criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for attracting the High Court's power of ordering retrial can be laid down. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. i. Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; ii. Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce; iii. Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the Trial Court to the inadmissible; iv. Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and v. Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.” These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial. As such there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to reach the finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of any manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. Particularly, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot confront the finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly. Crl. Revision No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M) 6 For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 10, 2011 Anand