C.R.R. No.2122 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.R. No.2122 of 2004 Date of Decision : 22.03.2011 Dharam Chand ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Tapan Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar acquitting the respondents in case F.I.R. No.170 dated 14.04.1998 registered under Sections 307/34 IPC at Police Station Jhajjar. The allegations are that one Satbir alongwith three other C.R.R. No.2122 of 2004 -2- persons namely Jai Parkash, Dholiya and Om Parkash had inflicted Dau blows on the face and right hand of the son of the petitioner and due to injuries the son of the petitioner became deaf and he could not be able to speak. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the following grounds:- i) firstly that the injured could have deposed in writing. ii) secondly that the weapon/s of offence were not recovered. iii) thirdly that even though the allegation was that the four injuries were caused but medical evidence did not corroborate the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that learned Court below had come to the conclusion that the injured did not give evidence in writing but at least a question had to be put to him whether he knew how to write or read. He has further argued that no such question had been asked by the learned Court below and thus the finding was completely conjectural. He has further argued that the name of respondent No.1 surfaced right at the beginning and it has been the consistent case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had caused injuries which are as under:- i) a sharp incised wound extending to chin to vertex of scaul placed from right side to of chin to the apex, exposing underline bones and brain matter, size 10” 2” inches. C.R.R. No.2122 of 2004 -3- ii) a sharp inches wound on the left side of injury no.1 6” X 3” exposing underline bone with lot of blood clots. iii) sharply incised wound on left hand between thumb and index finger, exposing underline fractures. Learned counsel for the private respondents has however argued that as regards respondents No.2, 3 and 4 even as per the F.I.R. there is only a suspicion. He has further argued that actually it is a case where assailants were unknown and the respondents had been implicated only because of established enmity. He has also otherwise defended the order of the learned Court below. He has further placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (6) SCC 650 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.12 held as follows:- “12. We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub- section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The C.R.R. No.2122 of 2004 -4- aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re- trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party.” There can be no argument with this proposition of law but C.R.R. No.2122 of 2004 -5- the only thing which must be highlighted here is that in that case the State had preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation. In the present case, in my considered opinion, disregard of the injured person’s evidence on the ground that he did not give his evidence in writing is clearly erroneous in nature. The present is not a case of re-appreciation of evidence but a case where perverse conclusion has been reached by the learned trial Court. This reasoning however applies only in the case of respondent No.1. With regard to the other accused persons it would be seen that they were named only on suspicion. They would have to be put on different pedestal altogether. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case back to the learned trial Court for fresh decision after taking into consideration the fact that no suggestion was put to either the injured or the complainant that the injured person knew how to write or read. Needless to say, this order has not expressed any view on the merits of the case but only on the perverse conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court on the limited facet mentioned above. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 22, 2011 JUDGE ashish