IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1708 of 2006 Date of Decision:25.11.2011 Main Pal .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Sharma, A.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the acquittal of accused-respondents No.2 and 3 namely Dhirender @ Dhira and Joginder sons of Shri Virender. They were named as accused in FIR No.274 dated 16.9.2002 registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak under Section 3(10) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 and under Section 506 IPC. One another case bearing FIR No.190 dated 28.6.2002 under Sections 323,342,506 IPC was also lodged against the abovesaid accused. Both the cases were consolidated and were disposed of by a common impugned judgment dated 25.1.2006 by the Court of Special Judge, Rohtak. Vide the impugned judgment, Special Judge, Rohtak, had recorded the acquittal of the accused-respondents No.2 and 3 by holding that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses PW-5 Mainpal, PW6 Inderjit, PW7 Bhanqa Ram do not aspire confidence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below has wrongly held that the evidence of the witnesses cannot be granted credence. According to counsel a reading thereof will show that the trial Judge has acted perversely while appreciating the evidence. The trial Judge took into consideration delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR and the fact that the earlier a complaint was got dismissed Criminal Revision No.1708 of 2006 -2- as withdrawn. The Court further held that witness namely Mainpal appearing as PW-5 had not stated anything about filing of previous complaint Ex.D-2. The reasons stated by the trial Court suffer from no infirmity. This Court will be hesitant to re-appreciate or reappraisal of the evidence while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. This Court in Additional Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Bathinda v. Gurmail Singh and others Crl. R. No.130 of 2005, decided on 8.3.2010, while taking note of various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that in view of the consistent view in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another; D. Stephens vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352); Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444; Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagan Nath, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 181; Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 1574 and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907 the High Court will not re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence in a revisional Court to disturb the findings of the Court below in case acquittal is based on well founded reasons. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. 25.11.2011 ( Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) rajeev Judge