Crl.Rev. No.715 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 715 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 05, 2010 Bhagaywati ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. This petition is filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) challenging order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Sonepat whereby all the accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC'). The brief facts of the case,as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of its judgement, read as under:- “1.In brief the prosecution case is that on 30.09.2006 intimation was received by the police that one Narender son of Ram Kumar resident of village Kheri Gujjar had died due to hanging. ASI Gujraj Singh of P.S. Ganaur reached there where Smt. Bhagyawanti, the mother of the deceased met him and got recorded her statement. As per her statement, one of her son's Crl.Rev. No.715 of 2010 (O&M) 2 named Narender (deceased) aged about 25 years was married about three years ago with Smt. Sudesh (one of the accused). Prior to the marriage, said Sudesh used to stay with her parental aunt (Bua) named Sukhbiri alias Sukho in Kot Mohalla, Sonipat and had even studied there. After marriage, Sudesh used to stay in the matrimonial home for 10-15 days and then would stay at the place of her parental aunt for 1-1/2-2 months. Whenever Sudesh used to come, she was followed by her cousin (Bua's son) namely Mukesh. Said Mukesh under the influence of liquor used to beat Narender by asserting that Sudesh was his (Mukesh's) wife, Sudesh used to take sides with him and thus he was misusing the relationship of brother-sister. It was further narrated by the complainant that when the deceased caught them red handed, he tried to plead with both of them but they did not pay any heed. Rather Mukesh called accused Smt.Sukhbiri and Narender's brother-in-law named Parmod and all of them had beaten Narender. They also threatened Narender that they will force him to commit suicide. By stating so, they took away Sudesh with them. Later on, after three months, Narender had brought back his wife Sudesh. One week later i.e. on 7.9.2006, Mukesh and Sukhbiri came there and took away Narender and Sudesh with them on the protest of performing some religious ceremony at Panipat but they along with Parmod and some outsiders beat him up. After this incident, Narender started behaving like a mental person and he used to murmur that "Mukesh", you had destroyed me by snatching my wife. Compelled by all these circumstances, Crl.Rev. No.715 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Narender committed suicide by hanging himself with a Neem tree in the courtyard of his house." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the wife of the deceased was having illicit relations with Mukesh and they had also got the deceased beaten up on one occasion. Due to this reason, the deceased had committed suicide. He has placed reliance on the suicide note (Annexure P1). After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. As per Forensic Science Laboratory, the suicide note (Annexure P1) has been written by Narender. A perusal of the said suicide note reveals that the deceased was mentally upset. But from the said note, it cannot be inferred that respondents No. 2 to 4 were guilty of abetment of suicide by deceased- Narender. Assuming that the wife of the deceased was having illicit relations with Mukesh, but the said fact cannot be said to be amounting of abetment of suicide committed by the deceased. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were allegedly not present in the village on the day the deceased committed suicide. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the suicide committed by the deceased was inconsequence of any act of the accused. The deceased had committed suicide after 15 days of his return from Panipat where he had been allegedly beaten up by the accused. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 4, 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 Crl.Rev. No.715 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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 a retrial. A finding of acquittal, as per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial Court. The impugned judgment dated 29.5.2009, thus, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge July 05, 2010 arya