IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2365 of 2006. Date of Decision : September 05, 2009. Narinder Kumar. ...... Petitioner . Versus. State of Punjab, and another. ..... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner . Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No. 1-State. None for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by complainant, challenging the acquittal of respondent No. 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide judgment dated 07.08.2006, holding therein that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt to fulfil the essential ingredients of Section 302 I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, cannot be sustained and the findings as recorded by the Trial Court, are not in accordance with evidence, which had been led by the prosecution. He further contends that the motive for commission of crime is established against respondent No. 2-accused and the circumstantial evidence, which had been produced pins down the accused- respondent No. 2 and the benefit of doubt given to the accused-respondent Crl. Revision No. 2365 of 2006. No. 2 is totally unjustified and cannot be sustained, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, had mis-read the evidence on record. He further contends that the petitioner had at the very outset stated that it is not only accused-respondent No. 2, who had committed the crime, but the real culprits are Krishan Lal Pandit, who is a tantrik, Ashwani Kumar, Hoshiar Singh and Ashok Kumar. He on this basis submits that the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the case is of circumstantial evidence alone. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and is based on extra judicial confession suffered by the accused-respondent No. 2 before P.W.1 Krishan Singh, who is related to P.W. 2 Narinder Kumar, who is the complainant. A perusal of the record shows that there is delay of two months and two days in lodging the report with the police, which has not been explained duly by the prosecution. The motive, which has been alleged to have been there for committing the crime has not been found to be natural and has been stated to be improbable and suspicious. The extra judicial confession, which is made the basis for pinning down the accused- respondent No. 2 is before a relative of the complainant, who is neither the resident of village nor a Sarpanch or Panch or any respectable person of the village or locality, who could be said to have any influence over the local police. An independent witness, who was cited by the prosecution i.e. Karnail Singh, who is stated to be a witness of the extra judicial confession of the accused, has not been examined by the prosecution. Since, there -2- Crl. Revision No. 2365 of 2006. being no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence needs to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt by completing the chain of circumstantial evidence, which would lead to only one conclusion and that is crime having been committed by the accused or none else is missing. There is no evidence against the accused-respondent No. 2 and none of the prosecution witnesses stated that they had seen the accused-respondent No. 2 alongwith children near the canal or having seen the accused-respondent No. 2 pushing both the children in the canal. The evidence, which is required to be available on record and which should come before the Court, should be trustworthy, reliable and cogent. None of the statements, which have been referred to by counsel for the petitioner during his arguments passes the test and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are fully justified, which do not call for any interference by this Court. As regards the contention of counsel for the petitioner with regard to involvement of other culprits namely Krishan Lal Pandit, Ashwani Kumar, Hoshiar Singh, and Ashok Kumar, the statement of Narinder Kumar, who is complainant P.W.2, does not indicate that he had ever stated in his initial report or subsequent thereto before the police about the involvement of the persons mentioned above. Rather, P.W.2 Narinder Kumar had made material improvements and exaggerations in his statement recorded in the Court as given to the police. None of the contention, which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner during his arguments have any force. No illegality in the procedure or any legal flaw has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner, which would persuade this Court to take a view, which is contrary to the one given by the Trial Court in its judgment dated 07.08.2006, which is impugned herein. -3- Crl. Revision No. 2365 of 2006. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments has held that the powers being exercised by the Revisional Court are limited in nature, especially to set aside the order of acquittal and that too at the instance of private party. In the case of Mahendra Partap Singh Versus Sarju Singh and another, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 707, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has said that the High Court is entitled to set aside the acquittal in a revision or order of retrial, where there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not entitled to interfere, if wrong view is taken by Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. However, the High Court can interfere, if there is an error on point of law or no appraisal of evidence at all. The High Court can also exercise its jurisdiction, if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence, which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. This position has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Akalu Ahir Versus Ramdeo Ram, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2145. This has been the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which has been followed by the Courts. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar, 2002 S.C. 2907, again this position has been reiterated. By now, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts, should not be lightly exercised, particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. This jurisdiction being limited one, should not be equated and exercised as one which an Appellate Court exercises, which is much wider as the Court exercising such -4- Crl. Revision No. 2365 of 2006. jurisdiction can go into the question of facts and law and convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. The revisional jurisdiction and that too at the instance of complainant has to be exercised by the High Courts with care, caution, circumspect and sparingly that too in very exceptional cases. Keeping these principles in view, no legal infirmity in the procedure or conduct of trial has been pointed out, which would call for interference by this Court as the assertion of counsel for the petitioner is non consideration of evidence by the Trial Court in the proper perspective, while reaching to the conclusion. This cannot be said to be a case, which would call for interference by this Court or one which would fall within the parameters, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction as has been laid down in various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction. In view of the above, the present petition does not call for any interference by this Court and, thus, stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 05, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : ____________________. -5-