Criminal Revision No. 491 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 491 of 1996 Date of Decision: 18.2.2008. Manohar Lal …Petitioner Versus Satpal and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Manohar Lal assailing the acquittal of Satpal, Shamher Singh, Ved Parkash, Johri and Om Parkash. Case FIR No. 183 dated 16.6.1985 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Panipat, under Section 323, 325, 452, 148, 149 IPC. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and Sat Pal, Shamsher Singh, Ved Parkash, Johri and Om Parkash were sent for trial. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 16.6.1985 when Kirpa Ram and Harbans Lal were present at their shop, a truck loaded with bags of fertilizer was received by them and when the labourer employed for unloading the same started to unload, accused Sat Pal, Ved Parkash, Shamsher Singh, Johri and Om Parkash came there armed with various weapons. It is stated that Shamsher Singh was Criminal Revision No. 491 of 1996 2 armed with iron rod, whereas others were armed with lathies. On the lalkara given by Johri that truck may not be allowed to unload, it is stated that the truck driver sped away with the truck and thereafter the accused attacked both Kirpa Ram and Harbans Lal, who in order to save themselves went inside the shop and bolted the shop from inside. It is further alleged that the accused broke upon the doors. Shamsher Singh gave two blows of iron rod on the head of of Harbans Lal, who was said to have fallen down and remained unconscious. Harbans Lal caused minor injuries to Shamsher Singh. It is further stated that the remaining accused, who were armed with lathies, also caused injuries to Kirpa Ram and Harbans Lal. It is further stated that one Chhabil Dass was attracted to the spot and saved the injured. The accused decamped from spot with their weapons. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Panipat where they were examined. The cause of grudge is that Manohar Lal son of Kirpa Ram and his brother Harbans Lal were running a shop for the sale of fertilizers and in the year 1980 they had purchased a plot for a sum of Rs.25,500/- from Hari Chand, Om Parkash and Jai Ram Dass, residents of village Babarpur and had constructed a shop on it. However, one Raj Kishan Bhalla had filed a suit for pre-emption and wanted to grab the shop due to which there was ill-will between the parties and security proceedings were also initiated. At trial, the prosecution had examined retired Inspector Risal Singh as PW.1, Manohar Lal as PW.2, Kirpa Ram as PW.3 and Harbans Lal as PW.4. The above said accused were tried by the Court of learned Criminal Revision No. 491 of 1996 3 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, who held them guilty of offence under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, and 452 IPC. He has released accused Om Parkash son of Butta Ram on probation, however, trial Court sentenced Satpal, Shamsher Singh, Ved Parkash and Johri to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 148 IPC, and period of six months along with fine of Rs.250/- each under Section 323 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325. He awarded sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.200/- under Sections 452/149 IPC. He ordered that in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. Aggrieved against their conviction, the respondents/accused had filed an appeal and by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, they were acquitted. The Appellate Court below took into consideration non- examination of the doctor as he had examined Harbans Lal and Kirpa Ram. No witness was examined by the prosecution, to be cross- examined by the accused, regarding nature and extent of injuries. It was also noticed that the Investigating Officer has not been examined. The first Appellate Court has also held that there is delay in lodging the complaint, further, the accused were not known to the witnesses earlier and their identities have not been established. Therefore, they could not be connected with the crime. Mr. S.D.Bansal, who has taken me to the findings of the Appellate Court below in paras 9 to 16 has stated that these findings are not borne out from the appreciation of evidence. Criminal Revision No. 491 of 1996 4 The scope of revisional Court is limited. In the present case, no appeal as envisaged under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed. Even in appeal against the acquittal, Appellate Court will not interfere, if two views are possible and the Court acquitting accused has taken one view. Revisional Court can only come to the rescue of the complainant if there is irregularity, patent illegality or perversity. Mr. Bansal has failed to point out any such infirmity. Therefore, there being no merit, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 18, 2008 “DK”