Crl.Rev.No.2714 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.2714 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.2.2010 Jeet Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Y.P.Malik, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Sushil Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 1.5.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. On the night intervening 21/22.8.2007 at about Crl.Rev.No.2714 of 2008 2 2.30 a.m. the complainant (Sarvjit Singh) approached the police and got recorded the FIR alleging that he was having two sisters namely Baljit Kaur who was married at Ludhiana and younger sister was married at Ladwa. His father Bhupinder Singh accused was habitual of drinking liquor. He and his mother Sinder Kaur, since deceased, used to prevent his father from consuming liquor and for that reason, his father used to beat him as well as his mother. Being fed up with his father, his mother went to Ludhiana about 1 ½ month back. On 21.8.2007 at noon time, she returned from Ludhiana. In the evening, he, his mother and his father had taken the meals. He had gone to the roof for sleeping. During night at about 11.30 p.m. he heard the cries of his mother. He got up from the cot and saw that his father was beating his mother with a spade (kasi). He raised noise and got down from the roof. In the meantime, his father Bhupinder Singh (accused) fled away after leaving the spade at the spot. He saw that his mother was lying on the cot in the pool of blood and there were injuries on her head and she died there and then he informed Sushil Kumar, Member Panchayat and told him about the incident. He left Sushil Kumar near the dead body to guard it. He and his uncle Piara Singh went to the police station and lodged the Crl.Rev.No.2714 of 2008 3 report. 3. After registration of the FIR, the inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of of Criminal Procedure were conducted. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The place of incident was inspected. The clothes worn by the deceased were taken into possession. The accused was arrested. After the necessary investigations were over, the case was sent up for trial.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. PW-8 Sarvjit Singh, who was an alleged eye witness to the occurrence, did not support the prosecution case when he appeared in the witness box. PW-9 Sushil Kumar and PW-10 Piara Singh, the other material witness also did not support the prosecution case. Since the material witness had not supported the prosecution case, the trial Court was left with no other option but to acquit the accused of the charge framed against him. This revision petition has been filed by a third person. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence by the trial Court. 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 Crl.Rev.No.2714 of 2008 4 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. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE February 16, 2010 anita