Crl.Rev.No. 2242 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2242 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.02.2009 Gurdial Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Gurpreet Singh, Malkiat Singh and Raja Rajat-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were tried for an offence under Sections 148/341/323/506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.120 dated 16.2.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar. Aggrieved by the same, Gurdial Singh-petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- Crl.Rev.No. 2242 of 2008 (O&M) 2 “The gravamen as culled out from the story of the prosecution is that on 16.2.2001 ASI Parminder Singh along with police party was present at Adda Tajpur for patrol duty. Then Gurdial Singh son of Amru Ram and Manjit Singh son of Sucha Singh residents of Village Chitti came present and Gurdial Singh son of Amru Ram got recorded his statement before ASI Parminder Singh that he is resident of above address. On 13.2.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. he and Manjit Singh son of Sucha Singh resident of village Chitti were going from the house of Manjit Singh to his house on the scooter. When their scooter reached near Banwalipur turn near bus stand Chitti, then Gurpreet Singh son of Amar Singh and Gura son of Jaila resident of Chitti cam from the front side on a scooter and they stopped then Gura was having Kirpan in his hand and Gurpreet was having Iron pipe in his hand. Gura was raised Lalkara that a lesson be taught to them for getting registered the FIR. On this Gurpreet Singh gave his Iron pipe blow which fell on his right arm. He fell down on the scooter, when he was lying on the earth, Gura gave kick blows on his abdomen. In the meantime Raja son of Rusti armed with pipe, Guzar armed with dang and Pinda son of Amarjit Singh armed with Iron pipe came there and gave blows on the person of Manjit Crl.Rev.No. 2242 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Singh. They raised roulla marr ditta maar ditta and on hearing their roulla Davinder Singh son of Sucha Singh and Resham Singh son of Battan Singh resident of Chitti came there and save them from the accused. The accused illegally stopped them and caused injuries and also gave threats to kill if the report is given to the police. Till today the respectable of the villagers were trying to get compromise effected between them. He and Manjit Singh went to the Civil Hospital and get them medically examined. The MLRs are being produced. Action be taken against them. This statement was read over to Gurdial Singh who put his signature after admitting the same as correct. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. ASI Parminder Singh started the investigation. The accused in this case were arrested. After completion of investigation challan against the accused was presented before the Court.” Occurrence in this case had allegedly taken place on 13.2.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. However, the First Information Report was lodged by the complainant on 16.2.2001. The petitioner and injured Manjit Singh got themselves medically examined on 16.2.2001. The explanation furnished by the prosecution regarding the delay in lodging of the FIR was that the talks regarding compromise were going on. It has been noticed by the trial Court Crl.Rev.No. 2242 of 2008 (O&M) 4 that the complainant, in his cross-examination, had stated that no offer of compromise was ever made nor any talk in this regard had taken place. Eye witness Davinder Singh (PW-3) and injured Manjit Singh (PW-2) had deposed that they had not given any application to Panch or Sarpanch of the village for compromise. It was also noticed by the trial Court that there was enmity between the parties. The petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that a case was registered against the father of the accused and he was a witness in the said case. The petitioner had made a complaint on 29.11.1999 against the father of the accused to the Cooperative Minister of Punjab. In these circumstance, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the delay in lodging of the FIR as well as medical examination of the petitioner and the injured witness gained significance and was fatal to the prosecution case. 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. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section Crl.Rev.No. 2242 of 2008 (O&M) 5 401 (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. (SABINA) JUDGE February 12, 2009 anita