IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1245 of 2000 Date of decision: June 28, 2010 Yusaf Masih .. Petitioner Vs. William Masih and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 9.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, acquitting the accused-respondents (herein referred as 'the respondent') of the charges framed against them under Section 302/120-B IPC. The facts in nutshell are that on 1.9.1996, the accused Ashwani Kumar brother of Yusaf Masih came to the house of the latter at Mohalla Adadpur, Jalandhar and compelled Amar Masih deceased to accompany him to village Uchi Bassi in order to attend marriage of Ram Lubhaya's daughter. In spite of the refusal to send their son, Yusuf Masih and his wife Chhindo prevented Amar Masih to accompany Ashwani Kumar. However, the latter took him and they could not prevent as Ashwani Kumar was their son in law. On the evening of 2.9.1996, Yusuf Masih received a telephonic call from Uchi Bassi that Amar Masih had received injuries and he should reach the village. On hearing telephonic call, Yusuf Masih along with Satnam Singh son of Sadhu Singh resident of Pacca Bagh Jalandhar Cantt. and Deepa went to village Uchi Bassi. On reaching there, they could not find any clue of their son Amar Masih. They continued searching for Amar Criminal Revision No.1245 of 2000 -2- *** Masih and on 7.9.1996, at about 1.30 a.m. they found the dead body of Amar Masih near Gate No.5 in the area of village Terkiana from where the water flows into river. The dead body was seen in the bushes at a distance of 200/300 yards from the gate No.5. Yusuf Masih identified the dead body of his son Amar Masih in the torch light and also into the moon light. Number of injuries were found on the dead body and the intestine was coming out. Yusuf Masih suspected Ashwani Kumar having killed Amar Masih and had thrown him in the canal. The motive behind the occurrence is that earlier to the occurrence, Amar Masih had given beatings to Ashwani Kumar. On registration of the case against Ashwani Kumar, investigation proceeded. Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dasuya, medico-legally examined Amar Masih and found the following injuries on his person :- “Incised wound horizontally in direction, over the front of the abdomen of size 10 cms x 7 cms intestines deep and some loops of intestine were protruding out. The wound was placed 20 cms below the ziphisterum and 12 cms above and symphsis pubic. On exploration skin of the wound was retracted underlying peritoneum had corresponding cut and underlying intestine found ruptured at places. Fecal matter was present in the peritoneal cavity. The Investigating Officer also recorded statements of the witnesses. During investigation, William Masih was also nominated as accused, therefore, challan was presented against both of them. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Rajesh Kumar, SMO, Civil Hospital, Dasuya (PW1), Resham Singh (PW2), Dalip Singh (PW3), Yusuf Masih (PW4), Chhindo (PW5), Manjit Singh (PW6), SI Onkar Singh (PW7), C. Balwinder Singh (PW8) and HC Iqbal Singh (PW9). Criminal Revision No.1245 of 2000 -3- *** When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Gurdip Singh (DW1), Ram Lubhaya (DW2) and Nathanial Masih Sarpanch (DW3). Arguments heard. Record perused. Undisputedly, Amar Masih had died. Yusuf Masih (PW4) and Chhindo (PW5) are his parents. Resham Singh (PW2) is the mother's sister's husband of the deceased. Manjit Singh (PW7), SI Onkar Singh (PW8), C. Balwinder Singh (PW8) and HC Iqbal Singh (PW9) are the official witnesses. The facts as run are that the accused Ashwani Kumar had taken the deceased from his house in the presence of Yusuf Masih and Chhindo on 1.9.1996 and his death was reported to Yusuf Masih on 2.9.1996, whereas, the FIR was lodged after five days i.e. on 7.9.1996. Though the medical evidence reveals that there were contents of alcohol in the visra, but, Resham Singh who had seen the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other on 2.9.1996 never stated that the accused was under the influence of alcohol. Had Resham Singh seen the deceased and the accused on 2.9.1996 on the canal bridge and information was received by the complainant on the same day regarding the injury suffered by Amar Masih, then Resham Singh (PW2) would have immediately informed about the complicity of the accused persons in the commission of the crime. But, he never informed the parents of the deceased about the incident on 2.9.1996. Further more, his presence at canal bridge, which is at a distance of about 80 kms from his home place is highly doubtful. The delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR stands unexplained. Not only Resham Singh, but Yusuf Masih himself has stated that he went to the village and asked Ram Lubhaya about his son, then the latter told him that Ashwani Kumar and Billi had gone along with his son towards canal, then nothing remained behind except to doubt these accused as the perpetrators of the crime, but why the FIR was not lodged for five days does not stand explained. It is also surprising that when Ram Lubhaya came to know that Amar Masih had suffered injuries, when he had not seen the deceased after he had left him Criminal Revision No.1245 of 2000 -4- *** and they came to know about the injuries only when his body was recovered from the canal on 7.9.1996. As such, the only witness to the occurrence, being related one, cannot be believed. The trial court appreciated the evidence and scrutinized the same very closely and extended benefit of doubt to the accused. State has also not filed any appeal. As such, while sitting over the revision petition and exercising the superintending powers, revisional jurisdiction could be invoked where the trial court has acted illegally without jurisdiction or has acted perversely against the settled principles of law. It has been observed in case Sheetala Prasad and others vs. Sri Kant and another, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1140 as under :- “9. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been over-looked either by the trial Court or the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. By now it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for correction of manifest Criminal Revision No.1245 of 2000 -5- *** illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In these cases, or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered.” But, having gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, the case does not appear to have fallen in any categories as referred to above. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No defect, irregularity much less illegality has been found warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. June 28, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge