CRR No.1622 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1622 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2011 Raj Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the judgment dated 4.1.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2007 as well as judgment dated 22.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jagadhri, whereby both the Courts below have acquitted accused/respondents in a case bearing No.24/1 of 2004 titled “State Vs. Anil Kumar and others”, FIR No.91 dated 1.9.2004 under Sections 323, 324, 506 IPC, Police Station Buria, Yamunanagar. Prosecution story inter alia is that on 1.9.2004 ASI Ramesh Pal along with Sumer Chand and Rajinder Singh were on patrol duty on a bridge at Fatehpur. At that time Raj Kumar son of Satpal met them and got recorded his statement to the effect that on 26.8.2004 at about 9.00 a.m. he and Ajmer Singh were standing near their fields and were talking CRR No.1622 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to each other. At that time Anil and Jai Singh on their two motorcycles came at that place. Anil Kumar was accompanied by Rajinder Kumar son of Rati Ram and Jai Singh was accompanied by Gasitoo son of Kanshi Ram. After stopping the motorcycles, Rajinder Kumar caught hold of him (Raj Kumar) while Anil Kumar inflicted upon him a knife blow below his left eye. Jai Singh gave him beatings with an iron bangle. Gasitoo Ram also gave him punches on his back and on his chest. He raised hue and cry and Ajmer Singh along with Sher Singh saved him from the clutches of the assailants. The assailants threatened him with dire consequences of death. According to the complainant, two other criminal cases are also pending against accused persons. Learned Magistrate having observed as under, has acquitted the accused: - “Firstly, the delay in lodging of the FIR is not explained as in the present case the complainant was well versant about the fact of lodging FIR and is not an illiterate person. With the history of litigation waiting for five days by the complainant for taking action against the accused is unexpected and unexplained. Secondly, the eye witnesses have not clarified that Anil had a knife and he inflicted a knife injury upon Raj Kumar. Sher Singh PW2 has resiled from his version during cross examination and Ajmer Singh PW3 did not implicate Anil with a knife. Thirdly, there is no evidence on the file which can corroborate the version of injured that Rajinder, Ghasitoo and Jaipl will also present with Anil. The sole testimony of complainant cannot be relied upon as there are material discrepancies in the version of remaining eye witnesses. Fourthly, when Raj Kumar himself has stated that police had come at the village on 26.8.2004 then why he did not report the matter to the police there and then when there was history of litigation between the parties.” Learned Appellate Court also affirmed the findings of the CRR No.1622 of 2010 (O&M) -3- learned Magistrate. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Akalu Ahir reported in 1973(3) SCC 583 in para 8 has observed as under: - “...........the revision from an order of acquittal, should appropriately refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. .............It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court in the court of trial, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct the retrial of the acquittal accused persons. From the very nature of this power, it should be exercised in exceptional cases and with great care and caution. Trials are not to be lihtly set aside when such order expose the accused persons to a fresh trial with all its consequential harassment. This matter is not res integra and had indeed been dealt with by this court at least in the four cases noticed by the High Court. ...............It makes all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering re-trial. No doubt, in the opinion of this court no criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for attracting the High Court's power of ordering retrial can be laid down. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. i. Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still qcquitted the accused; ii. Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce; iii. Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the Trial Court to the inadmissible; iv. Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and CRR No.1622 of 2010 (O&M) -4- v. Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.” These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the humble opinion of this Court, in a revision filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal, revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re- appreciate the evidence. However, revisional Court shall be within its jurisdiction to see as to whether trial Court has shut out or has overlooked the evidence which could clarify the issue. Revisional Court can further see manifest error of law or jurisdictional error or procedural error committed by the trial Court amounting to failure of justice. In the present case, both the Courts below have discussed in detail entire evidence and have recorded order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any particular evidence, which could not be noticed by both the Courts below to prove the guilt of the accused. Impugned judgments need no interference. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge February 23, 2011 R.S.