Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.5.2009 Raj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Gopal Dass, father of Raj Kumar, PW.1, claimed himself to be President of Mahatma Gian Giri Mandir, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar. Mahatma Gian Chand had expired. Parkash Rani, accused No. 2 is wife of Mahatma Gian Chand. Other accused are relations or supporters of Parkash Rani. There was ongoing litigation between Parkash Rani and Gopal Dass. Case set out by the prosecution in the FIR Ex.PA/2 is that on 24.1.2005 at about 5.30 A.M., Gopal Dass had gone to Mandir to pay obeisance and had requested his son Raj Kumar to accompany him. Raj Kumar said to his father that he should proceed and he would follow him later. It is stated that when Raj Kumar reached there he saw accused causing injuries to Gopal Dass. Occurrence is stated to have taken Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 2 place on 24.1.2005 at 5.30 A.M. Raj Kumar PW.1 is the solitary eye witness of the occurrence. The deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where he remained for two & a half hours and thereafter he was taken to Satyam Hospital. FIR on the statement of PW.1 Raj Kumar was registered on 24.1.2005 at 6.30 P.M. after a delay of 13 hours. The present revision petition has been preferred by Raj Kumar complainant against the acquittal of accused/respondents. Record of trial Court was requisitioned. FIR and statement of PW.1 Raj Kumar have been read in the Court. After having read the necessary evidence with the assistance of counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the judgment. The trial Court came to the conclusion that cause of death of deceased Gopal Dass was shock and hemorrhage on account of ante- mortem injuries. The Court below came to conclusion that Sain Dass, brother of the deceased was not examined. The trial Judge relied upon the testimony of DW.1 Chattar Singh that on the day of occurrence Raj Kumar PW.1 had performed duty as a Guard Awakener. The trial Court rightly held that there was no indication available from District Jail, Kapurthala records that PW.1 Raj Kumar absented from duty. The explanation furnished by PW.1 Raj Kumar that he had obtained a station leave and was suffering from loose motions and had taken the medicine from the Chemist was not accepted. Admission of PW.1 Raj Kumar that there is no document in the Civil Hospital showing his presence was also taken into consideration. Raj Kumar further stated that his clothes Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 3 were stained with blood but no such clothes were produced by him. Trial Court further came to conclusion that as per testimony of PW.4 Dr. Prem Nath Dutta, police had reached Civil Hospital at 8.30 A.M. and presented an application Ex.PE. In case police was present in the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar at 8.30 A.M. then PW.1 Raj Kumar ought to have made his statement to the police. The judgment of the trial Court has been perused. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse. The trial Court has formulated one opinion which is possible on the facts of the case. The State has opted not to file any appeal. The scope of revisional Court to cause interference is very limited. It was held in Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707, 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 316), this Court points out that the High Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 4 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 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 Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 5 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 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, Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 6 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 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 Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 7 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) (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 Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907, the High Court has Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2009 8 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. There is no merit. Present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 7, 2009 “DK”