Criminal Revision No.2601 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2601 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.03.2010 Mewa Singh son of Manphul Singh resident of village Badhra, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Haryana. 2. Mukhtiar Singh son of Kalu Ram; 3. Heera Nand alias Babla son of Ram Kumar; 4. Pardeep son of Ram Kumar; 5. Balbir Singh son of Kalu Ram; 6. Krishan son of Rajinder; 7. Rajesh son of Balbir; 8. Parbhu son of Tejram; 9. Sahab Kaur Devi wife of Rajender Singh; 10. Bharpai Devi alias Bharpo Devi wife of Daya Nand; all residents of village Badhra, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 10. Criminal Revision No.2601 of 2008 2 SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of acquittal, dated 03.09.08, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, vide which, it acquitted all the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 148 IPC, and, nine accused (respondents 2 to 9), for the offences, punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, FIR No. 187 dated 27.10.98, under Sections 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Badhra, was got registered, by the revision-petitioner, against the respondents, stating therein, that he belonged to Badhra. It was further stated that he had constructed a house, in his field, wherein, he alongwith his family members was residing. It was further stated that, adjoining his (revision-petitioner's) field, there existed the field of his cousin, namely Rajender. It was further stated that, there was a litigation, pending between the revision-petitioner and said Rajender. It was further stated that, on 26.10.98, at about 10.00 PM, when Vinay son of the revision-petitioner, was ploughing the field, by tractor, and he was sitting, in front of his house, Rajender, armed with an axe, Dhanna son of Kalu, armed with a jelly, and, Leela alias Dharm Chand, armed with a lathi, came there. It was further stated that Rajender, gave two axe blows, on his (revision-petitioner's) head. Dhanna, gave jelly blows, on his head, right shoulder, left thigh and ankle, whereas, Leela Criminal Revision No.2601 of 2008 3 alias Dharam Chand, gave lathi blows, on his right eye, elbow of right hand and on the back. It was further stated that, when the revision- petitioner, cried for help, his children namely Vijay Kumar, Vedpal and Sunita, came to his rescue. It was further stated that, at the relevant time, respondents No. 2 to 9, armed with lathies and jellies, also reached the spot, on another tractor, and started causing injuries, on the person of his (revision-petitioner's) children namely Vijay Kumar, Vedpal and Sunita. It was further stated that, in the meantime, his real younger brother, namely Om Parkash, also came there, seeing whom, all the assailants, fled from the spot, with their respective weapons. It was further stated that, one Sukhbir son of Kartar Singh also came there. It was further stated that, thereafter, Om Parkash and Sukhbir, arranged a private vehicle, wherein, all the injured, were shifted to Civil Hospital, where, they were medico-legally examined. 3. A cross case, containing the counter allegations, was got registered, by Heera Nand, one of the respondents, against the revision- petitioner. After the completion of investigation, two separate challans, were filed against the members of both the parties. 4. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused, were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 5. Charge under Section 148, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. N.C. Criminal Revision No.2601 of 2008 4 Gaba (PW1), Dharambir, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW2), Dr. Wazir Singh (PW3), Subhash Chander, Head Constable (PW4), Mewa Singh, complainant (PW5), Sunita (PW6), Vedpal (PW7), and, Vinay Kumar (PW8). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence, was closed. 7. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, examined Dr. Ved Kumar (DW1), Rajender, Criminal Ahlmad (DW2), Dr. Ram Chander (DW3), Parveen Kumar, Advocate (DW4), and, Vivek Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad (DW5). Thereafter, they closed their defence evidence. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted respondents No. 2 to 10, on the following grounds:- (i) That they were not the members of an unlawful assembly, as the first occurrence, which took place, was between some of the accused (not respondents 2 to 10) and the members of the complainant party, in which, the accused, who were convicted, were members of an unlawful assembly, and acted, in prosecution of the common object thereof. (ii) That in the second occurrence there was a free fight, between the accused/respondents (2 to 9), and the members of the complainant party, in which, both the parties, caused injuries, on each other, and, it was not possible, to come to the conclusion, as to which Criminal Revision No.2601 of 2008 5 person, caused which injury, and, as such, benefit of doubt, was required to be given. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the trial Court, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the prosecution, was unable, to prove its case, beyond a reasonable doubt against respondents No. 2 to 10. He further submitted that, there was complete misreading and misappropriation of the evidence, by the trial Court. He further submitted that, even material pieces of evidence, were not taken into consideration, by the trial Court, at the time of deciding the case. He further submitted that the judgement of acquittal, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the trial Court, properly read and appreciated the evidence, and came to the conclusion, that the prosecution, miserably failed, to prove its case, against respondents No. 2 to 10, beyond a reasonable doubt. They further submitted that, no material pieces of evidence, were ignored, by the trial Court They further submitted that, if two views, are possible, from the evidence, on record, the view, which is favourable to the accused, is required to be taken. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered Criminal Revision No.2601 of 2008 6 opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 14. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court, cannot interfere with the judgement of acquittal, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that there was either misreading of evidence or misappreciation thereof, or, some material pieces of evidence, were not considered, at the time of deciding the case. In the instant case, there was neither misreading of evidence, nor misappreciation thereof, nor material pieces of evidence were ignored. The reasons given by the trial Court, as depicted above for acquitting respondents No. 2 to 10 are based on the correct reading and due appreciation of the evidence. It is settled principle of law, that if two views, are possible, from the evidence, and the view, taken by the trial Court, while acquitting the accused, is reasonably possible view, then this Court, should not interfere with the judgement of acquittal, in its revisional jurisdiction. 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 Criminal Revision No.2601 of 2008 7 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. The judgement, rendered by the trial Court, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. 16.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE