Criminal Revision No. 1650 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1650 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.02.2010 Asha Devi wife of Sh. Mam Raj Singh, aged about 32 years, r/o village Jatu Luhari, now residing at village Kalinga, District Bhiwani. ... Complainant/Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Haryana. 2. Dharmender son of Balbir aged 39 years, r/o village Jatu Luhari, District Bhiwani. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate, for the complainant/revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of acquittal dated 20.02.08, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 12.05.07, Dharampal, Assisant Sub Inspector, alongwith some other Police officials, was present, at bus stand Jatu Luhari, on patrol duty, when Asha Devi, complainant, presented a complaint, stating therein, that on 11.05.07 Criminal Revision No. 1650 of 2008 2 Dharmender, accused, under the influence of liquor had an altercation with her and also threatened to kill her. However, the accused, was calmed down with the intervention of the villagers. In the night, at about 11.30 PM, the accused, entered into the house of the complainant and set the same on fire. The complainant was sleeping with her family, in the courtyard of her house, at the relevant time. She came out. Her father saw the accused fleeing. She raised an alarm and the fire was put off by the villagers. She telephoned her husband, and narrated the entire incident, to him. Thereafter, she moved a complaint, to the concerned Police, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was registered, against the accused. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, he was challed. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 436 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Sunder (PW1), Asha Devi, complainant (PW2), Jaswant Singh (PW3), Radhey Shyam, Head Constable (PW4), Ashok Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW5), Setpal Singh, Head Constable (PW6), Subhash Chander, EHC (PW7), Girish Kumar, Draftsman (PW8), and, Dharampal, Assistant Criminal Revision No. 1650 of 2008 3 Sub Inspector (PW9), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, examined Shyam (DW1), and, Balbir Singh (DW2), in his defence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the trial Court, did not take into consideration the evidence, on record, in its proper perspective and by wrongly discarding the same, acquitted the accused. He further submitted that the evidence of the eye- witnesses namely Asha Devi, PW2 and Jaswant Singh, PW3, was not properly appreciated, by the Court below, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in acquitting the accused. He further submitted that, much importance, was given, to the statement of Shyam, DW1, to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the judgement of acquittal of the trial Court, suffers from illegality and perversity and is liable to be set aside. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the Criminal Revision No. 1650 of 2008 4 contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that in the revision, against acquittal, by a private complainant, the scope of interference is very limited. The scope of revision against acquittal, was well discussed by the Apex Court, in a judgement rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 61 (S.C.). In the said case, their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that, in the absence of any legal infirmity, either in the procedure, or in the conduct of trial, there was no justification, for the High Court, to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra), their Lordships also placed reliance on D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla AIR 1951, Supreme Court 196, K.C. Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1788, Akalu Ahir and others Vs. Ramdeo Ram (1973) 2 SCC 583, Patakalapti Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others Vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another, AIR 1975 SC 1854, and Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh AIR 1968 SC 707. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Gurmail Singh Vs. Boga Singh and others, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 623. Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, let us see, whether the judgement of the Court below suffers from illegality or perversity or not. The trial Court, in my considered opinion, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that Asha Devi, PW2, complainant, did not state, in her statement, on the basis whereof, the Criminal Revision No. 1650 of 2008 5 FIR, was recorded, that she saw the occurrence. She, on the other hand, stated that, her father Jaswant Singh, PW3, told her, that he saw the accused running away. She, thus, made an improvement, in her statement, in the Court, when she stated, that she saw the occurrence. This was a material improvement, having been made, by her, in her statement, without any explanation, and, therefore, the trial Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that Asha Devi, PW2, was not a witness to the occurrence. Shyam son of Kanwar Singh, who according to the prosecution case, had extinguished the fire, appeared, as DW1, and deposed that, on 11.05.07, at about 11.30 PM. he and one Raju, had seen the fire, in the house of Asha Devi, which they extinguished. He further stated that, at that time, nobody was present, in the street. During the course of his cross-examination, Shyam, DW1, stated that, he and Raju, had knocked at the door of the complainant. Since the presence of Shyam, was admitted, by the prosecution, who knocked, at the door of the house of the complainant, when he saw fire, in her (complainant's) house, the trial Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion that, his evidence, was very significant, to reach, at a definite conclusion. The statements of Jaswant Singh, PW3, father of the complainant, and, Asha Devi, PW2, were, thus, belied from the statement of Shyam, DW1, who, in clear-cut terms deposed, that he had not seen anybody, either setting ablaze the house of the complainant, or present near the house, at the relevant time. No other person, from the neighbourhood, was examined, who supposedly saw the alleged occurrence. Since the accused, was neither seen, entering into the house Criminal Revision No. 1650 of 2008 6 of the complainant, nor he was seen, setting ablaze the house, nor the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to the effect, that the accused, was seen running, was found to be reliable, the trial Court, in my opinion, was right, in acquitting him. The judgement of the trial Court, therefore, does not suffers from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same, is, thus, liable to be upheld. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. 17.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE