Crl.Rev.No.1373 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1373 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2010 Prem Singh ......Petitioner Versus Sant Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 8.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala City, whereby respondents No.1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.7.2001 at about 12.00 noon when complainant-Prem Singh was working in his fields accused Kala wanted to cross the fields of the complainant with his tractor. On being stopped from doing so, accused Sant Singh also Crl.Rev.No.1373 of 2009 (O&M) 2 came to the spot with a lathi in his hand and told the complainant that he will see as to who can stopped the tractor from crossing the fields. Immediately, therefore, accused Sant Singh hit the complainant Prem Singh with the lathi held in his hand on his head. Thereafter, accused Kala also struck the complainant Prem Singh with a lathi hit him on his right arm. Accused Kala then struck the complainant on his left arm with the lathi held in in his hand. On hue and cry being raised by the complainant, one Mohinder Singh, who was working in the nearby fields came to the spot and rescued the complainant from the hands of the accused persons. As a result of the beating given by the accused persons, the complainant received serious injuries. On statement of the complainant which is Ex.PW. 4/A, Ex.PW 2/A was registered and investigation commenced. Both accused were arrested and later released on bail.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, has observed as under:- “11. As per eye witness account given by PW-1 Mahender accused Sant Singh wanted to cross the fields of complainant Prem Singh which was objected to by him. Crl.Rev.No.1373 of 2009 (O&M) 3 On this accused Sant Singh and complainant Prem Singh started abusing each other. Then complainant Prem Singh hit accused Sant Singh with a 'Kassi” held in his hand. Then Prem Singh went away and came with a lathi in his hand. Accused Kala and Sant Singh also had lathis in their hands and then there was a mutual fight between the complainant and accused. It was Prem Singh who hit accused Sant Singh with a lathi. 12.Complainant Prem Singh, when deposed as PW-4 stated that it was both accused Sant Singh and Kala who were crossing his fields on their tractor on the relevant date and time when he objected to the same both accused beat him up. He further stated that one Sher Singh also came to the spot which fact has been denied by PW-1 Mahender in his cross-examination. The presence of Sher Singh does not even find mention in the complaint-Ex.PW 4/A on the basis of which FIR was registered in the case. 13. From the above depositions of eye witness and complainant, I find that two different versions of the incident are coming out from the persons who are alleged to be present together on the spot. Further more the version given by the complainant as PW-4 is Crl.Rev.No.1373 of 2009 (O&M) 4 also different from his own statement Ex.PW 4/A on the basis of which FIR in the case was registered. It has also come out in the deposition of PW-1 Mahender that in fact, complainant Prem hit accused Sant Singh with a kassi first. 16. In view of inconsistencies in the versions given by the complainant and the eye witness qua the occurrence and also inconsistencies in the FIR lodged by injured Prem Singh and his testimony as PW-4, doubts have crept in as to the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution. The role of the accused persons in the incident as put forward by the prosecution in not free from all reasonable doubts especially when PW-1 Mahender has stated that it was complainant Prem who hit the accused Sant Singh with a kassi. No other testimony on record goes to prove the involvement of any of the accused in the incident as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, both accused Sant Singh and Kala @ Balwinder stand acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. “ During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence by the trial Court. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting Crl.Rev.No.1373 of 2009 (O&M) 5 respondents No.1 and 2 of the charge levelled against them, are sound reasons. 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 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 04, 2010 anita