Crl.Rev.No.181 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.181 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.4.2010 Mahender Singh ......Petitioner Versus Dayanand and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- Crl.Rev.No.181 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “ On 8.7.2007, one doctor's ruqqa Ex.PE from Pushpanjali hospital, Gurgaon was received in the police station regarding admission of patient namely Krishan Kumar in the said hospital on account of road side accident, on the basis of which, Mohd. Hussain Head Constable P.S.Pataudi reached the hospital and moved application Ex.PK regarding fitness of the patient to make the statement. The doctor on duty declared the patient unfit to make statement vide opinion Ex.PK/1. On 9.7.2007, ASI Jagdish Chand was present at Narhera turn on Bilaspur-Pataudi Road along with other police officials when compainant Mahender met him and submitted the complaint Ex.PB with the allegations that on 8.7.2007 at about 9 a.m. his brother namely Krishan Kumar had gone to their fields to serve tea to the labourers working in the fields. When he started for the home and reached in front of the house of Sumer son of Mohan Ram, he saw accused Daya Nand sitting in his Maruti Alto Car white coloured. On seeing him, said Daya Nand came out of his car and told him that he is purchasing the disputed land of Laxman and asked him not to interfere in the deal failing which he will teach him a lesson and kill him by crushing him under his car. He further alleged that similar threat was extended by Daya Crl.Rev.No.181 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Nand four days ago when both of them had an exchange of words. On hearing their noise, Sumer Singh came out of his house and Daya Nand started abusing his brother Krishan and Sumer pacified both of them as both belonged to the same village. Krishan went towards his Gitwar and Daya Nand also went away. After ten minutes, Daya Nand returned while driving his car at a high speed and hit Krishan from the back side with an intention to kill him. On hearing the noise, Sumer came out of his house, while he himself was already present in his Gitwar. Both of them came at the spot, but accused Daya Nand fled away from the spot along with his vehicle.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charge framed him by the trial Court on the ground that there was unexplained delay of 32 hours in lodging of the FIR. Although the injured was declared unfit to make the statement yet the complainant, who was an alleged eye witness to the occurrence, did not lodge the FIR immediately after the occurrence. Moreover, as per the medical record, the injured was brought to the hospital by the complainant-petitioner with alleged history of road side accident. Apparently, later on, after due deliberations and consultations, Crl.Rev.No.181 of 2009 (O&M) 4 respondent No.1 was falsely involved in this case. Respondent No.1 had not denied the occurrence but has taken a defence that, in fact, there had been an altercation and exchange of words between him and the injured. While respondent No.1 had started moving the car, injured- PW-5 Krishan Kumar tried to pull out respondent No.1 out of the car and as a result, he (injured) sufferred injuries. The defence plea taken by respondent No.1 had been rightly believed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence by the trial Court. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondent No.1 of the charge levelled against him, 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 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. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Crl.Rev.No.181 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. SABINA) JUDGE April 27, 2010 anita