IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1509 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 06, 2009. Jeet Singh son of Kulwant Singh, resident of Village Kharian, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. ...... Petitioner . Versus. State of Haryana, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner . AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Crl . Misc. No. 28748 of 2009. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 187 days in filing the present petition is condoned. Crl. Revision No. 1509 of 2009. In the present petition, the allegations are that there was a dispute between the brothers on the question of use of tubewell, which was installed by them jointly. Several panchayats were convened and compromises were entered into, but still the dispute persisted. On 20.11.2000 at about 01:00 / 01:30 p.m., the complainant was irrigating his field by tubewell. Surjit Singh was also assisting the complainant and one Rameshwar Dass was also present there. In the meantime, accused Devender Singh came on his motor cycle alongwith Mahender, who was armed with his Crl. Revision No. 1509 of 2009. gun. Accused Ganga Bishan, Om Parkash and Ved Parkash also came there on their tractor. All the five came and stopped the complainant from irrigating the land and even put off the tubewell. As per allegations, Mahender Singh threatened the complainant that he has nothing to do with the tubewell and if he is found using the said tubewell in future, he would be shot dead. All of them abused him and slapped him and took away the belt, handle and fuel tank. It is on this basis the F.I.R. was got registered and thereafter on investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 148, 149, 323, 506 I.P.C. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court, while considering the evidence led by the parties has come to a conclusion that there is no independent witness corroborating the statement of the complainant with regard to occurrence of incident and nothing has been proved on record to substantiate the charges framed against the respondents/accused. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence of the complainant clearly shows that he was slapped by the accused persons and they were armed with deadly weapons and even threatened him. He further places reliance on the statement of H.C. Satpal Singh P.W.1 and H.C. Dharamvir P.W. 4, who have stated that the recovery of the weapons were effected from the accused persons, which they were allegedly carrying with them. On this basis he submits that the Trial Court has not appreciated the witnesses in true perspective. Apart from them one Surjit Singh P.W. 5 has also deposed as an independent witness, supporting the contention of the complainant. -2- Crl. Revision No. 1509 of 2009. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. On appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court, it has come on record that no medico legal examination of the complainant was conducted on the injuries received by him. It has been found that there are discrepancies in the statements of Surjit Singh P.W.5 and the complainant. The recovery, which has been effected, has not been relied upon by the Court on the ground that the official witnesses namely H.C. Satpal Singh P.W.1 as well as H.C. Daramvir Singh P.W.4 were unable to depose about the person and place from where the recovery of tractor, motorcycle and gun vide memo Ex. P.C. were taken into possession by the police. As per prosecution, respondents/accused had taken the fuel tank, belt and handle of engine alongwith them from site where the occurrence had taken place, but the same have not been recovered from the possession of the accused. The case property has also not been produced during the trial and no explanation has been given for such non production of the case property. It has also come on record that there is civil litigation pending between the parties regarding tubewell in question and other lands. There being discrepancies between the statements in the ocular narration of the facts, the Court has given benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Trial Court. Jurisdiction of the Court, while exercising its revisional powers is quite circumspect and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The Trial Court, while exercising its power of assessing the evidence comes to a conclusion which is cogent and not totally perverse, although, different view can be taken on appreciation of the same evidence, itself would not be a -3- Crl. Revision No. 1509 of 2009. ground to interfere, while exercising power under the revisional jurisdiction. In the present case, no such illegality or finding can be said to have been recorded by the Court, which would call for exercise of Revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 06, 2009. sjks. -4-