Crl.Rev.No. 1121 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1121 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.2.2010 Angrejo Devi ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala Cantt, whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The case of the prosecution as made out from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and other accompanying documents is that on 31.3.1999 an application of Smt.Angrejo Devi was received in the police station to the effect that she is resident of village Manumajra Tehsil Crl.Rev.No. 1121 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Barara, District Ambala. On 25.3.1999 at about 8.30 p.m., when she was going outside the village to answer the call of nature then she saw that an old ambassador car of while colour stopped at a distance of 200 meter from the village. One person was coming towards the village after alighting from the car. After reaching near her that person caught hold her and dragged her towards the car. She raised alarm. On hearing her hue and cry, Ram Piari and Saroj Bala, already present there, ran away towards the road and they also started raising alarm. In the meantime, many persons of village rushed towards the road. On seeing them, accused tried to fled away towards the car after leaving her and he fell down on the road but before the people reached there, he had already escaped after sitting in the car. On 26.3.1999, she reported the matter to police station Barara but no action was taken against the accused. From her statement offence under Section 354 IPC was made out against accused. Formal FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the court for putting the accused on trial.” Crl.Rev.No. 1121 of 2009 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out In the present case, the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 25.3.1999 at about 8.30 p.m., whereas, the FIR was lodged on 31.3.1999. Learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has observed that the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the complainant. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that FIR No.35 dated 27.3.1999 under Sections 323, 325, 342 read with Section 34 IPC was lodged by respondent No.2 against the husband and brother-in-law of the complainant and Ram Piari. In the said case, the accused were convicted. Ram Piari was examined as PW-2 by the complainant in support of her case, whereas, the other alleged eye witness had not been examined by the complainant. In these circumstances, learned trial Court, rightly came to the conclusion that the possibility that respondent No.2 has been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. 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. Crl.Rev.No. 1121 of 2009 (O&M) 4 The present case does not warrant a 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. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. SABINA) JUDGE February 22, 2010 anita