Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 Date of decision: 16.3.2009 Harsarup Singh ......Petitioner Versus Jaspal Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Upinder Kaur Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Jaspal Singh, Kuldip Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Ram Chand-respondent Nos.1 to 4 were tried for an offence under Sections 341/ 325/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.66 dated 19.7.2003 registered at Police Station Sadar, Julkan. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 25.2.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala. Aggrieved by the same, Harsarup-petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.7.2003 ASI Nirmal Singh along with police party was present at T- Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 2 point Chhana Mour, in connection with patrolling. The complainant Kartar Singh got recorded his statement before him Ex.P1, whereby he has reported that on 18.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. after finishing his work he was going towards his village from bus stand Devigarh. When he reached near Ghaghar bridge he saw accused Jaspal Singh, Kuldip Singh, Gurjit Singh and Ram Chand coming on Swaraj Tractor, which was driven by Gurjit Singh. They stopped the tractor near the complainant. He has reported that Jaspal Singh asked him that today they will teach him lesson for pursuing the case against them and has also abused him. Gurjit Singh and Ram Chand caught hold of the complainant and Kuldip Singh gave a hockey blow on the left tample of the forehead. He gave another blow, which had broken the teeth of the complainant. He raised raula Marta Marta. On hearing his cries the brother of the complainant Har Sarup reached at the spot and on seeing him all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. He has reported that due to fear he remained at his house that night. When on 19.7.2003 he was going after taking medicine from Civil Dispensary Dudhan Sadhan to Rajindera Hospital and on the way he met Police party and got his statement recorded.” Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them. The complainant had been successful in proving his case. He had suffered injuries in the alleged occurrence, which were duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Occurrence in this case had allegedly taken place on 18.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. The respondents had allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of Kartar Singh (since deceased). Injured/complainant Kartar Singh had died during the pendency of the trial on 17.9.2005. FIR in this case was lodged on 19.7.2003. The delay in lodging of the FIR was, however, not successfully explained by the injured/complainant. The case of the complainant was that Kuldip Singh had given a hockey blow on his left temple and another blow on his mouth, which resulted in breaking of his tooth. However, learned trial Court has observed that as per the medical evidence i.e. Medico Legal Report (Ex.P5-A), the incisors were only found moving and no broken incisor was reported. It has been further observed that the other injury has also not been corroborated by the medical evidence as the injured was complaining of pain in the head, whereas, he (injured) had alleged that the hockey blow has inflicted on his left temple. No external injury was, however, seen on the person of the complainant. Complainant was referred for dental surgeon on 19.7.2003 itself, but he did not approach the dental surgeon for getting himself examined. The complainant was Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 4 examined by the dental surgeon on 16.9.2003 and it was reported that there was no mobility of adjacent teeth and the tooth has been completely healed. It was also reported that no significant opinion regarding the dental injury after two months could be given. In these circumstance, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, are sound reasons and call for no interference. 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 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 Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 16, 2009 anita