Crl.Rev No.849 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No.849 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2011 Victoria ...Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL --- Present: Ms.Anju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Bassi, APP, for Union Territory. Ms.Kanika Sharma, Advocate, for Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This petition has arisen out of the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh. In nutshell the allegations are that on 20.11.1993 at 8.30/8.45 PM, the petitioner, her daughter and her husband were Crl.Rev No.849 of 2006 2 watching TV in their house. At that time somebody rang up the bell, whereupon her daughter Neelam had opened the door, whereas the husband of the complainant Namely Mangat Masih went out and saw 4-5 police officials along with Shri Manjeet Singh Rahi, Advocate were standing there. All the police officials started quarrelling with Mangat Masih and took him in Maruti Van bearing No.CHF-761. Motive behind the occurrence is told to be a dispute between Mangat Masih and Shri Manjeet Singh Rahi, Advocate. On the aforesaid statement of Mrs. Victoria complainant, a case was registered and investigated and ultimately charge report was submitted in the court. On finding a prima facie case under sections 365/323/34 IPC all the accused/respondents were charge- sheeted. In order to substantiate the charges the complainant examined 12 witnesses in all. Trial resulted into acquittal. Actually, earlier, vide order dated 31.7.2000 passed in CRR No.487 of 2000 this court had observed that the complainant should first approach the Sessions Judge. Obviously, the complainant had filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge. Now Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 7.01.2006 has held that in view of provisions of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appeal was maintainable and not the revision. In any case, without entering into the controversy, this court needs to scrutinise the impugned judgment. It transpires that Crl.Rev No.849 of 2006 3 the evidence led by the complainant is not sufficient in order to establish the case against the accused for the offences for which they have been charged. Neither Victoria (PW 1) or Neelam (PW 2), nor Mangat Masih (PW 3) raised any hue and cry at the time of abduction. Mangat Masih did not state anywhere that he protested against his abduction from Chandigarh to Fatehgarh Sahib. He neither suffered any injury nor any damage to his clothes. Even Taranjit Singh (PW 4) has stated that he himself had gone to some other place and there is no reason to discard this aspect of his statement. Learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and the impugned judgment appears to be well founded and well reasoned. It is also well settled by now that this court while exercising supervisory powers need not re-appreciate the evidence and interference could be made only if the judgment suffers from any perversity or illegality or some evidence has been overlooked and the material evidence has not been appreciated but no such defect has been detected in the instant case. It is also well settled by now that if on appreciation of evidence, two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 25.08.2011 Judge rp