CRR No.287 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.287 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.05.2011 Rattan Chand and others ....Petitioner Versus Ramji and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.6518 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 285 days in filing the revision is condoned. Crl. Revision No.287 of 2011 Revisionists have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the judgment dated 29.10.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur (Nawanshahr), thereby acquitting the accused in an offence pursuant to FIR No.107 dated 17.4.2006 under Sections 379/411 IPC, Police Station Balachaur. The prosecution story is that complainant Jagdish Singh moved an application against Ramji Dass Panch, Gram Panchayat village Chankoya before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balachaur, alleging therein that Ramji Dass Panch of village Chakoya by misusing powers CRR No.287 of 2011 (O&M) -2- had cut down the old pilkan tree. It was further stated that tree was being looked after by the villagers and due to its nature all the assemblies were made under this tree and gram panchayat of village was owner of this tree. Ramji Dass panch along with his family members Tarsem Lal son of Karam Chand and Karam Chand son of Polo Ram, with the help of other people had cut down the tree. It was further stated that cost of tree was Rs.40000/-. It was cut down in the mid night. Earlier also panchayat had tried to stop Ramjit Dass from cutting the tree and they have filed case before SDM, Balachaur and DDPO, Hoshiarpur. It was further stated that Ramji Dass filed appeal before Joint Development Commissioner, which was dismissed and thereafter, he filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balachaur, which was also dismissed. So, Ramji Dass had violated the order passed by different Courts and cut down the tree. So, he should be removed from the post of panch and action should be taken against him. On this application, investigation was conducted by ASI Bhag Singh. Case was registered against the accused persons. During the investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. From the prosecution side as many as 8 witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence as many as five witnesses were examined. Learned trial Court having perused the statements made by CRR No.287 of 2011 (O&M) -3- prosecution witnesses and having perused entire record has come to the conclusion that entire chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, hence offence against the accused is not proved and ultimately acquitted the accused. Learned trial Court has held that prosecution had failed to prove that on which, date time and place, accused had stolen the branches of the tree. Similarly, learned trial Court has observed that there is long standing litigation between the complainant and the accused which shows that complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the accused in the present case; it has already been discussed by the trial Court that in the earlier litigation, witnesses Hem Raj and Rattan Chand had deposed in favour of the complainant and against the accused and Hem Raj admitted that he had given statement three times against the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that all the witnesses are pocket witnesses and have motive to depose falsely. Furthermore, this Court in Pritam Singh Vs. Arvinder Singh and others, CRR No.135 of 2010 decided on 12.1.2011 after relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Akalu Ahir reported in 1973(3) SCC 583, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002(6) SCC 560 and Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad reported in 2008(3) SCC 423 has observed as under: - “In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the humble opinion of this Court, in a revision against the order of acquittal, revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re- appreciate the evidence. However, revisional Court shall be within its jurisdiction to see as to whether trial Court has shut out or has overlooked the evidence which could clarify the issue. Revisional Court can further see manifest error of law or jurisdictional error or procedural error committed by the trial Court amounting to failure of justice.” CRR No.287 of 2011 (O&M) -4- In the present case, neither manifest error of law nor jurisdictional error is pointed out by the revisionist. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that from the evidence available on the record, guilt of the accused is proved. I am afraid that while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I cannot re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left by the trial Court while deciding the case. In the opinion of this Court, even if two views are possible on the appreciation of evidence available on record, the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused must prevail and this Court should not substitute its view over the view taken by the learned trial Court. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge May 10, 2011 R.S.