Crl.Rev No.2616 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No.2616 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.09.2011 Jamshed ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana. None for for respondents No.2 to 9. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Jamshed complainant (herein referred as “the petitioner”) has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, acquitting all the accused/respondents (herein referred as the respondents) of the charges under sections 307/323 read with section 149 IPC and 506 IPC. The State has not challenged the acquittal of the accused/respondents but it is a petition by the complainant. The prosecution case is based on the testimonies of complainant Jamshed (PW 10) and two eye witnesses namely Crl.Rev No.2616 of 2008 2 Sirajudin (PW 6) and Samsudin (PW 7). They have stated that Nijjar accused while driving the car in which three co-accused were sitting, had deliberately hit against the motorcycle of the complainant and thereafter the accused physically assaulted him. On the other hand, defence version is that the complainant sustained injuries by slip of motorcycle. The presence of Samsudin (PW 7), an interested witness, at the spot is doubtful. His testimony is quite contradictory to the deposition of Jamshed complainant (PW 10), when he states that the car of the accused and motorcycle of the complainant had collided. Ocular version is also inconsistent with the medical evidence. The doctor has shown eight injuries on the person of the complainant including 2 injuries in the shape of complain of pain. Oral version is that first of all the accused hit the car against the motor cycle of the complainant and thereafter, when he fell down he was given fist, iron rod and lathi blows on his legs. In such a situation, the possibility of grave injuries and more than eight in number could not be ruled out. In his cross-examination, Dr.O.P.Sethi (PW 5) admitted that the injuries on the person of complainant could be the result of fall on hard surface. The injuries were simple and superficial in nature. Thus, the story as set up by the prosecution suffers from preponderance of the probabilities. Since there was mining dispute between the parties, therefore, the complainant had motive to falsely implicate the Crl.Rev No.2616 of 2008 3 accused. Elaborating the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in case of Vimal Singh Vs. Khuman Singh (1998) 7 SCC 223, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the interference by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the exceptional cases viz. (i) when it is found that order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice; (ii) When it is found that trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case; (iii) Where trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered and (iv) Where material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. (AIR 1962 SC 1788 relied). Having examined the aforesaid parameters as set out for interference, it is observed that the judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity muchless irregularity warranting interference by this course. Even there is delay of 59 days in filing the revision petition which has not been explained satisfactorily. No merit. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 29.09.2011 Judge rp