Crl.Rev.No.110 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.110 of 2000 Date of Decision: 24 - 2 - 2009 Charan Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.Shweta Singh Chauhan, Advocate for Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) DDR No.5 dated 5.4.1996 was recorded at Police Station Sadar Ambala on the statement made by Charan Singh son of Dalip Singh. He reached the Police Station at 5.15 P.M. along with his brother, Sadhu Singh and Amar Singh Namberdar. It was stated by him that he was doing agriculture work. He is having a water outlet to irrigate his fields. The water outlet was closed as canal feeding the outlet was not having requisite water. However, some water used to leak and with that he was cultivating his sunflowers when accused Nasib Singh armed with lathi, Baljit Singh and Ranjit Singh armed with gandasies and Babli younger son of Nasib Singh armed with Ballam reached there. They objected as to why complainant had diverted the water as it was turn of one Deepa. Complainant stated that the canal had dried up, therefore, it was nobody's turn to irrigate fields. On Crl.Rev.No.110 of 2000 [2] hearing this, Nasib Singh gave lalkara that he should be taught lesson and gave lathi blow on the head of Charan Singh. To divert the blow, Charan Singh raised his right arm and suffered injury on right fore-arm. Nasib Singh gave another blow on his head which was suffered by him on right fore-arm. Thereafter Baljit Singh son of Nasib Singh gave a gandasi blow on his right arm. Ranjit Singh gave a gandasi blow on his left arm. Babli gave a ballam blow on his right arm. He raised noise. Son and younger brother of the complainant came towards the spot to rescue him. Seeing them accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, FIR was registered on 10.4.1996 after five days. Doctor found fracture of right radius. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Prosecution examined Charan Singh as PW-1, his brother Karnail Singh as PW-2, Dr.V.K.Sharma appeared as PW-3 and proved medico legal report. PW-4 Dr.R.S.Bugalia radiologically examined injured Charan Singh. PW-5 ASI Jarnail Singh was the Investigating Officer. Constable Mohinder Singh appeared as PW-6 and ASI Yash Pal appeared as PW-7. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Learned trial Court held that there are serious contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and held that their evidence lack credibility. Charan Singh complainant stated in Court that police met him in the hospital on the next day though as per version of the prosecution, he approached the police at the police station on the day of occurrence. Court cannot lose sight of the fact that version of the complainant recorded in the DDR is of April 5, 1996. There is no safeguard to the recording of the DDR as no special report was sent. The Court held that the delay in recording of the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. The acquittal of Crl.Rev.No.110 of 2000 [3] the respondents in the present case was pronounced on 7.9.1999. Admittedly, no State appeal has been filed. This Court had noticed the entire legal position regarding the powers vested in this Court while deciding criminal revision against acquittal. This Court had passed a judgment in Mohinder Singh v. Mehar Singh & others, Criminal Revision No.648 of 1996, decided on 18.2.2008. In Mohinder Singh's case (supra), this Court relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahendra Partap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, AIR 1968 SC 707. In Mahendra Partap Singh's case (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon D.Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196. Hon'ble Apex Court further in Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145, Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, (1986)3 SCC 444, Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others v. Jagannath, 1995 SCC(Cri) 181, Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) SCC(Cri) 1574 and Bindeshwari Prasad singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 2907 has held that powers of the revisional Court are not to be exercised in case of acquittal until or unless, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or is based on grave legal error. In present case, accused-respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence. Revisional Court is not to re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Therefore, there is no other option but to dismiss the present revision petition. For the reasons stated above, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 24, 2009. JUDGE RC