Criminal Revision No.669 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.669 of 1994 Date of decision: February 14, 2008 Harphool Singh … Petitioner Versus Hoshiar Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, the revision petition has been filed by Harphool Singh, complainant whereby he has assailed the acquittal of accused Hoshiar Singh, Randhir Singh and Sucha Singh in case FIR No.129 dated 17.7.1993 registered at Police Station, Chhachhrauli under Section 342, 323 read with Section 34 and 506 IPC. Mr. Virk appearing for the petitioner has stated that State had not preferred appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. Perusal of the judgment shows that Harphool Singh had lodged FIR (Ex.P/A), wherein he stated that on 17th July, 1993 acquitted accused respondents, Hoshiar Singh, Randhir Singh and Sucha Singh arrived at a tea-stall and they were consuming liquor and complainant also consumed some liquor there and at about 6.30 p.m. complainant Criminal Revision No.669 of 1994 2 accompanied the accused to Yamunanagar and at 9.00 p.m. accused consumed some more liquor and then some beating was given to the complainant. After the registration of the case, challan was filed. The accused respondents were charged for offences under Sections 342, 323 read with Sections 34 and 506 IPC. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that two independent witnesses, Mam Chand and Satpal had not supported the prosecution case as Satpal was given up, whereas Mam Chand has resiled. Trial Court has also noticed that the complainant Harphool Singh, despite various opportunities given, had not come forward to depose against accused respondents. Prosecution evidence only included medical evidence and the statement of investigating officer. In para 9 of the judgment, reasons have been given for acquitting the accused respondents. In the present case, neither the injured nor the eye- witnesses have deposed against the accused respondents. Since in the present case, no appeal against acquittal was filed, revisional Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, who himself had not appeared against the acquitted accused respondents. Even otherwise, the Court will not interfere in appeal against acquittal if two views are possible. The scope of revisional Court is further limited. Revisional Court can interfere only in case of any incurable irregularity, illegality or perversity. From the facts of the case, no case is made out to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Hence, present revision petition is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 14, 2008. rps