Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 Date of Decision: 5.3.2009 Vidya Devi …Petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed by Vidya Devi against the acquittal of Gurdial Singh, Tilak Raj and Wassan Singh, who were tried in case FIR No. 124 dated 29.9.1993 registered at Police Station Gurdaspur, under Sections 307, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the State has opted not to file any appeal against the acquittal of the accused/respondents. Revisional Court has very limited powers in a revision against acquittal. Briefly stated that Dass Ram stated that on 24.9.1993 at about 5.30 P.M. he was returning to his house and when he reached near the house of Gian Chand, he heard the cries of “SAVE SAVE”. He Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 2 reached the house of Gian Chand where he found Gurdial Singh, and Wassan Singh armed with dang and Tilak Raj armed with kirch inside the haveli of Gian Chand. They were causing injuries to D.C. Alias Jagdish and Vidya Devi wife of Gian Chand. Gurdial Singh gave dang blow to Prem Lal on various parts of his body. Wassan Singh gave several dang blows to D.C. Alias Jagdish. After receiving injuries D.C. alias Jagdish had fallen on the ground. Vidya Devi came forward to rescue him then Tilak Raj caught hold of her and dragged her and also gave a kirch blow in her stomach. Gurdial Singh and Wassan Singh had also given dang blows to Vidya Devi. When she fell down on the ground then Dass Ram came forward to rescue the injured. Gurdial Singh caught hold of him and Wassan Singh gave him dang blow hitting him on the right arm. Another dang blow was given in left thigh and Tilak Raj gave kirch blow on his left hand. The injured were medicolegally examined and Medico Legal Reports were prepared. Three injuries were found on the person of Vidya Devi. Out of three injuries, two injuries were surgical injuries and third injury was kept under observation for operation. The third injury was declared as dangerous to life. Injuries No.1 and 2 were blunt but Vidya Devi was not radiologically examined, therefore, injury No.3 was declared as simple. The doctors were examined to prove medicolegal evidence Dass Ram, appeared as PW.6, Vidya Devi appeared as PW.7 and they deposed regarding the manner in which the injuries were caused to them. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 3 Accused Gurdial Singh pleaded alibi and stated that he was present in the office of Punjab State Electricity Board at Ranjit Bagh. Tilak Raj accused stated that he was having relation with Asha Rani daughter of Vidya Devi. He met Asha Rani per chance in the street and Vidya Devi did not approve the same and Vidya Devi and D.C. alias Jagdish gave injuries to him. On this his brother Karnail Chand arrived at the spot. He gave push to Vidya Devi and she fell down on a wooden peg and received injuries in her stomach. Wassan Singh stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. In defence, DW.1 Karnail Chand was examined by Tilak Raj. D.W.2 Joginder Singh, Junior Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board and DW.3 Vinod Kumar were examined by Gurdial Singh to prove his alibi. The trial Court took into consideration the fact that the FIR was lodged after five days. Prosecution had failed to furnish any explanation regarding the delay. The Court further placed reliance upon the testimony of PW.1 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh who stated that injury No.3 could be suffered by Vidya Devi as a result of falling on broken pieces of glass or any other sharp object. The Court further held that PW.4 Dr. Rajiv Rampal, who had performed operation, had not stated that the injury was dangerous to life. The Court further held that prosecution suffers from blemish of improbabilities, contradictions and improvements. The Court further took into consideration the fact that Prem Lal and DC alias Jagdish were not medicolegally examined. The Court further held that two dang blows have been attributed to Gurdial Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 4 Singh and Wassan Singh. No corresponding injuries have been found on the person of Vidya Devi rather injuries No.1 and 2 were surgical injuries and injury No.3 was attributed to Tilak Raj. The Court also believed the plea of alibi raised by Gurdial Singh. This Court examined the entire case law in Smt. Sushila Kumari v. State of Haryana and Others 2008 Criminal Law Journal 2709 and has held as under:- “It was held in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another, relying upon D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196, as under: “Only two grounds are mentioned by this Court as entitling the High Court to set aside an acquittal in a revision and to order a retrial. They are that there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. In explaining these two propositions, this Court further states that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. Again, in Logendranath Jha v. Polajlal Biswas, 1951 SCR 676 (AIR 1951 SC Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 5 316), this Court points out that the High Court is entitled in revision to set aside an acquittal if there is an error on a point of law or no appraisal of the evidence at all. This Court observes that it is not sufficient to say that the judgment under revision is “perverse” or “lacking in true correct perspective”. It is pointed out further that by ordering a retrial, the dice is loaded against the accused, because however much the High Court may caution the Subordinate Court, it is always difficult to re-weigh the evidence ignoring the opinion of the High Court. Again in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1963 (3) SCR 412 = (AIR 1962 SC 1788), it is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 6 list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court. As stated not one of these points which have been laid down by this Court, was covered in the present case. In fact on reading the judgment of the High Court it is apparent to us that the learned judge has re-weighed the evidence from his own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions judge on almost every point. This we do not conceive to be his duty in dealing in revision with an acquittal when Government has not chosen to file an appeal against it. In other words, the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.” In Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352), Hon'ble apex Court observed as under: “This Court then proceeded to Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 7 observe that the High Court is certainly entitled in revision to set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but it was emphasized that this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when “there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.” In face of prohibition in Section 439(4), Cr.P.C., for the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, 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 re-trial can be laid down. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 8 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 wished to produce; (iii) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; (iv) Where the material evidence has been over-looked 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. In Mahendra Pratap Singh, (1968) 2 SCR 287 = (AIR 1968 SC 707) Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 9 (supra) the position was again reviewed and the rule laid down in the three earlier cases reaffirmed. In that case the reading of the judgment of the High Court made it plain that it had re-weighed the evidence from its own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions Judge on almost every point. This court pointed out that it was not the duty of the High Court to do so while dealing with an acquittal on revision, when the Government had not chosen to file an appeal against it. “In other words” said this Court, “the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.” Similar view was reiterated by Hon'ble apex Court in Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444. Again, Hon'ble apex Court, in Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 181, held that it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. In Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and in Bindeshwari Prasad Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 10 Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907, the High Court has been reminded of its very limited jurisdiction in revision against acquittal. It is well settled that unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial or patent illegality is pointed out, the revisional Court will not interfere. I find no merit in the instant revision petition to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction as learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 5, 2009 “DK”