Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2010 Sucha Singh ......Petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.S.Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Saini, Advocate, for the respondents No.1 to 5. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G.Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Complainant-Sucha Singh has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dasuya, whereby respondents No.1 to 5 were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 21.5.2003, ASI Surinder Kumar reached police station Mukerian in connection with FIR No.89 dated 17.5.2003 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, where he received MLR No.SSM/15/-03 pertaining to Sucha Singh, on which ASI Surinder Kumar reached at Civil Hospital, Mukerian and obtained the fitness certificate whereby patient was not fit to make statement. Thereafter on 22.5.2003, ASI Surinder Kumar along with other police officials reached civil hospital, Mukerian and after obtaining the fitness certificate got recorded the statement of Sucha Singh complainant to the effect that he is resident of village Palaki and is an agriculturist. The property has been partitioned between the brothers and there is tubewell in the land under his possession. For getting the electric connection, officials of the Electricity Department gave him a form to be filled up and to be returned after signing. He sent Kundan Singh and Joginer Singh along with form to the house of his elder brother Sukhdev Singh and after 2/3 days, they returned the form unsigned and stated that Sukhdev Singh did not sign the form. On 15.5.2003, his brother Sukhdev Singh harvested the wheat crop standing in his fields was also damaged. When he made request on 16.5.2003 to Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Sukhdev Singh and his son regarding their act, they threatened to set him on fire. On 17.5.2003, in the evening he took along with him his licensed gun and moved towards his fields and when he was returning, he saw Gurdial Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Prem Singh standing near the motor of Kirpal Singh. They raised lalkara and in order to save himself, he fired from his gun. Thereafter all of them ran away from the spot. Due to fear, he went away after keeping the fun at his residence. On 21.5.2003 at about 11.00 a.m. when he was going from Naushehra towards Mukerian on his scooter No.PB-54/3098, a white colour Maruti car in which Gudial Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sarwan Singh, Harbans Singh and Prem Singh were sitting, came and struck against his scooter and he returned towards village Manna. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Singh driver of the car struck against the scooter due to which he fell down. In order to save himself, he ran towards village Naushehra and accused came down from the car and tried to catch him. Accused also threw stones on him due to which bleeding started from the wounds. Thereafter, accused gathered around him and started beating him then accused put him in the car and took him towards Bhangala Police Post. The occurrence was Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 4 witnessed by Dev resident of Naushehra who tried to save him from the accused but due to threats made by the accused, he did not come forward. Police Officials of Police Post Bhangala took him to Civil Hospital, Mukerian and got admitted. Action be taken against them. In this incident, he has also lost Rs.20,000/- and wrist watch.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, has observed as under:- “13. Baldev Singh alleged eye witness has appeared as PW3. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that accused caused injuries on all the accused also threatened him. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that on 16.5.2003, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered against the complainant Sucha Singh regarding fire incident. He has further stated that at the time of occurrence, no one was there except him. He has shown his ignorance as to who threw the first stone to cause injury to the complainant. He has further stated that police has not recorded his statement till today. He has further admitted that police never came to him regarding the occurrence nor they ever enquired from him. This witness has further stated that he can not Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 5 tell the name and father's name of the accused. This witness has further gone to the extent in his cross- examination that even after seeking the accused, he cannot tell their names. He has further stated that police never visited the place of occurrence in his presence. This witness has further stated that he did not know, when the case was registered and who got registered the case. Perusal of statement of this witness further shows that this witness during his evidence has stated the name of the accused wrongly. The presence of this witness on the place of occurrence is doubtful. 14. The investigating officer SI Surinder Kumar has appeared as PW-5 who has proved the statement Ex.PA, ruqa Ex.PH; FIR Ex.PJ site plan Ex.PK. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that case was registered against the complainant Sucha Singh prior to the present case for raising fire upon the present accused Gurdial Singh. This witness has further stated that at the time of registration of the present case, Sucha Singh complainant was not arrested in that case. This witness has further stated that he has disclosed the fact to the higher authorities, but they stated that he should not be arrested. Statement got recorded by Sucha Singh complainant Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 6 was read over to him and he signed after admitting the same to be correct. He has further stated that when he reached at the spot, persons gathered there but none of them stated regarding the occurrence. He has further stated that he inquired about the occurrence , but no one could tell about the same. No statement of the persons present was recorded. 15. From the above evidence, it is clear that a case under Section 307 IPC was already registered against the complainant and he was not arrested in that case as per the version of the Investigating Officer, despite the fact regarding the involvement of Sucha Singh complainant in that case. Secondly, at the time of preparation of site plan, neither the complainant accompanied the police nor eye witness was present. No person has stated regarding the occurrence who were allegedly present at the time when the police reached the spot. It is not believable that the prosecution could have made exact site plan of the place of occurrence without any person stating the occurrence and showing the place of occurrence to the police. Complainant has denied all the facts mentioned in the statement Ex.PA recorded by the police. Presence of the alleged eye witness at the place of Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 7 occurrence is doubtful. It is highly improbable that accused will cause injuries on the person of complainant against whom the accused have made statement and a case has already been registered. It is highly improbable that after causing injuries to the complainant, accused will themselves took the complainant to the hospital to get him admitted there. The case of the prosecution is doubtful.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence by the trial Court. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondents No.1 to 5 of the charge levelled against them, are sound reasons. It has been held by the 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 instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. 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. Crl.Rev.No.1153 of 2009 (O&M) 8 Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. SABINA) JUDGE July 29, 2010 anita