Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : December 02, 2010 Jagdish Kumar and others ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.P.Soi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 6.10.2005 passed by the first Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of Jagdish Kumar, Hazuri Ram, Kala and Amar Chand – accused/ petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 25.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura convicting and sentencing them for various offences. However, in appeal, each of them was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity `the IPC'); and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] Factual matrix of the case is that 7.3.1997 complainant Shamsher Singh along with few others had gone to the Dera of Ajaib Singh Khudey Wala on their tractor. At about 8.30 PM, while they were returning from the Dera and crossing the street near the house of Nand Lal, accused, the latter exhorted to catch hold of the complainant and his associates and they inflicted him injuries. Consequently, he was shifted to A.P.Jain Hospital, Rajpura. The doctor found six injuries on his person and informed the police. ASI Om Parkash arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant. On receipt of the X-ray reports, the instant case was registered. On submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused were charged for offences under Sections 452/ 323/325/379/148 and 149 IPC, but he denied as incorrect and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate its version, examined as many as eight witnesses in all, which included Dr.S.K.Goel (PW1), Dr.Rajiv Gupta (PW2), Shamsher Singh – complainant (PW3), Manjit Singh (PW4), Baldev Singh (PW5), ASI Om Parkash (PW6), HC Aroor Singh (PW7) and Amardeep Kumar clerk (PW8). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction of the petitioners as also co- accused Nand Lal, Satpal Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Madan Pal under Sections 323/325/379 read with Section 149 IPC. However, in appeal, all Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] other accused, except the petitioners were acquitted and the conviction of the petitioners was converted under Section 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction and has straightway sought to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence, while urging that the accused and the complainant hail from same village and have resolved their inter-se disputes with the intervention of the respectables of the village. Even otherwise, records transpire that the Appellate Court has returned a finding of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioners on proper appreciation of the evidence. The prosecution witnesses are consistent about the time, place and the manner, in which the occurrence had taken place. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court, as such, the conviction recorded by the court below is maintained. It is a settled law by now that the interference at the revisional stage could be made very sparingly and in cases where the judgment was palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or taking into consideration irrelevant evidence or the court while holding the trial misconducted the proceedings. It has also been observed by the Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 as under:- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of 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 when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” In any case, the re-appreciation of the evidence at revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. It was so observed in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar , 2008(4) RCR(Crl.) 555. Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand ) and another , AIR 2002 SC 2907 observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2005(O&M) [ 5 ] Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the records before me transpire that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997. The petitioners have already suffered lot of agony of protracted proceedings for the last more than thirteen years. The petitioners as also the complainant are co-villagers and they have amicably settled their dispute, and now, they wish to bring peace and amity in their relations. The complainant has also made a statement in this regard. Moreover, the petitioners have undergone more than a month of the substantive sentence. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of things to send them to imprisonment again. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence that it is reduced to that already undergone, without altering the sentence of fine. December 02, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE