Criminal Revision No.322 of 2005 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION NO.322 OF 2005 Jallour Singh ... Petitioners VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent Decided on : November 17, 2010 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 14.12.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal of the accused - petitioner Jallour Singh against the judgment dated 7.7.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, convicting and sentencing him and Dharam Singh (non-petitioner) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the `IPC'); and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, each. However, Dharam Singh has not challenged his conviction either before the Appellate Court or this Court. In brief, the facts are that on 22.11.1998, Mit Singh – Criminal Revision No.322 of 2005 [ 2 ] complainant got his statement recorded before ASI Malkiat Singh, alleging that he is resident of village Kand Wala. About 10 years back, his brother- in-law Bhola Singh died and he is now residing with his widow Gurdeep Kaur. His second brother-in-law Jallour Singh (accused) is also residing along with his family in the adjacent house. When the accused was demolishing roof of the rooms, in his possession, constructed adjacent to the rooms occupied by Gurdeep Kaur, she restrained him from doing so. Thereafter, on 22.11.1998 at about 9.30 AM, when the complainant along with Gurdeep Kaur had come to see-off Bhola Singh son of Nishan Singh r/o Village Bega, the accused Jallour Singh armed with Dang and Dharam Singh armed with Gandasa assisted by Natha Singh raised lalkara to teach the complainant a lesson for trying to usurp their land. Dharam Singh inflicted two gandasa blows from its blunt side on his head, as a result of which he fell down; Natha Singh gave Kasoli blow on the little finger of his right hand; accused – petitioner Jallour Singh inflicted a dang blow on the left knee of Gurdeep Kaur. However, on raising hue and cry, Bhola Singh came at their rescue, who shifted Gurdeep Kaur to the Civil Hospital. On the aforesaid allegations, the case was registered, investigated and charge-report was submitted. The accused were charged under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined six witnesses in all, namely; Dr.I.S.Aggarwal, Medical officer (PW1), Dr.Gurinder Singh (PW2), Mit Singh (PW3), Gurdeep Kaur (PW4), ASI Criminal Revision No.322 of 2005 [ 3 ] Malkiat Singh (PW5) and PHG Ajit Singh (PW6). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and in defence, they examined Lakha Singh (DW1) and Chotto (DW2). Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction of the petitioner and Dharam Singh. But only the petitioner has come up in revision. Arguments heard. Records perused. The cumulative effect of reading of the testimonies of Mit Singh (PW3) and Gurdeep Kaur (PW4) convinces the mind of this Court that the version of the prosecution is correct and has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mit Singh (PW3), while appearing in the witness box has stated that on 22.11.1998 at about 9.30 AM, when he along with Gurdeep Kaur had come to see off Bhola Singh, who had come to see them, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came and inflicted injuries to them. His testimony finds full corroboration from Gurdeep Kaur (PW4), who is also a stamped witness. The Medical Officer vide his report Ex.PW5/E opined one of the injuries on the person of Gurdeep Kaur as `grievous in nature'. The police had also recovered one dang from the petitioner, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/M. Despite lengthy and searching cross-examination, the veracity of the prosecution witnesses could not be shattered, while on the other hand, the evidence led in defence is not consistent and convincing one. Since both the courts below have elaborately discussed and Criminal Revision No.322 of 2005 [ 4 ] appreciated the evidence led by both the parties, therefore, the same is not required to be gone into. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very restricted in nature. In case State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu and others, AIR 1979 SC 663, it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the Trial Court or the Sessions Judge. Once again, in 1999, in case State of Kerala vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 808, the Apex Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Similar observations were made in case Jayakanth vs. State of Karnataka , 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), wherein, it was observed that unless the petitioner establishes that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or there is such illegality or perversity in the order of the courts below, the High Court cannot disturb the finding recorded by the lower court. Criminal Revision No.322 of 2005 [ 5 ] Keeping in view the above, the findings of guilt of the petitioner concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. Now, while considering the quantum of sentence, it is observed that the sentence is in commensuration with the crime committed and, thus, it also requires no interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda for compliance. The amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the concerned quarters. The 17th day of November, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE