Crl. Revn. No. 2471 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 2471 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 21, 2009 Kewal Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Kewal Singh has filed this revision petition assailing judgment dated 03.11.2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar thereby acquitting respondents no.2 to 20 in case FIR No.356 dated 17.10.1998 under Sections 307, 148, 149, 427, 447, 511 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and also under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner- complainant is in possession of 28 acres of land out of 84 acres of land of Mandir Murti Devi, Jalandhar being cultivated by him for 60-65 years before the occurrence. On 15.06.1998 at about 03:30 P.M., petitioner and his brother Karnail Singh were sitting at the tubewell of the petitioner. About 200-250 persons including respondents no.2 to 20 came there in 10- Crl. Revn. No. 2471 of 2008 (O&M) 2 15 cars and jeeps, 15-16 tractors, a truck and two buses belonging to C. T. Public School. All the aforesaid tractors were brought into the land of Kewal Singh and it was ploughed. Some of the accused were armed with clubs and swords, while four of them were armed with fire arms. Those accused, who were armed with fire arms, fired shots with intent to kill the petitioner and his brother, who, however, saved themselves by running away from there. The accused destroyed standing sugarcane crop of the complainant and tried to take forcible possession of the land. They remained there for about four hours. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. In the instant case, FIR was lodged after delay of four months, which has not been explained. This delay of four months is sufficient enough to create doubt about the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that report in Daily Diary of the Police Station was recorded on 16.06.1998. However, the said report has been taken into consideration by the trial court and it has been observed that the said report supports the version of the accused that some minor incident, which had taken place on 15.06.1998, was amicably settled by both sides. In this context, it has been noticed that the petitioner-complainant admitted in cross-examination that on 16.06.1998 compromise Mark X-1 was arrived at and affidavit Mark X-2 was also sworn by the petitioner and others. This admission of the complainant-petitioner himself demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. It is thus apparent that on account of compromise into some minor incident that had taken place on 15.06.1998, the petitioner did not pursue the matter further. However, it appears that after Kanti Pal, one of the accused, succeeded in obtaining temporary injunction from Civil Court in suit, which had been instituted on 09.06.1998, the complainant lodged the instant FIR much thereafter. Civil Court granted temporary Crl. Revn. No. 2471 of 2008 (O&M) 3 injunction against the petitioner and his brother and in favour of Kanti Pal accused and others vide order dated 23.09.1998 regarding the disputed land prima facie holding Kanti Pal and others to be in possession thereof. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in getting the said order reversed upto Hon'ble Apex Court. The instant FIR was lodged on 17.10.1998 after temporary injunction was granted against the petitioner and his brother on 23.09.1998. The petitioner and his brother even tried to deny the civil litigation and temporary injunction granted in favour of Kanti Pal and others. Even in subsequent complaint dated 29.09.1998 made by the petitioner to Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police, Jalandhar, petitioner did not mention alleged incident dated 15.06.1998. Even in statement dated 04.10.1998 made by the complainant before DIG, Jalandhar, no reference to any firing by any of the accused was made. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Courts are slow to interfere with the judgment of acquittal even in appeal. Jurisdiction in revision is more limited as compared to appeal. Evidence cannot be re- appreciated in revision. The view taken by the trial court is a very reasonable view based on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed even if, for the same of argument only, a different view is possible on re-appreciation of evidence. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 21, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE