Crl.Rev.No.1925 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1925 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.02.2009 Hari Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kunal Siag, Advocate for Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Chand Singh and Bhola Singh-respondent Nos.2 and 3 were tried for an offence under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.83 dated 12.7.1996 registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 4.7.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana. Aggrieved by the same, Hari Singh-complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on the receipt of one wireless questy from guard Incharge, CMC, Hospital, Ludhiana, ASI Dilawar Singh alongwith CI-Raj Crl.Rev.No.1925 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Mohammad 638 for obtaining the statement of injured went there where he moved an application regarding the fitness of the injured for making statement on 8.7.1996 and 9.7.1996, Dr. opined the injured to be unfit for making statement and that thereafter on 10.7.1996 he again went to CMC, Ludhiana and moved an application before CMC, Ludhiana for obtaining the opinion of the doctor upon which doctor opined, the injured Hari Singh to be fit for making statement thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant Hari Singh son of Sh.Mukhtiar Singh Jatt resident of village Kuhli Kalan, aged about 55 years who stated that he is resident of aforesaid address and that on the morning of 8.7.1996 at about 7 a.m. he was coming back to his home after having a round of his fields and when he reached near the Kamd ( field of sugarcane crop), Chand Singh and Bhola Singh both sons of Arjan Singh r/o village Kuhli Khurd came out of the Kamad and that Chand Singh was holding a dang upon which a 'sua' was fixed, whereas, Bhola Singh also holding a dang and that immediately coming out of the Kamad, Chand Singh told him that he (complainant) wants to take the possession of the Abadi upon which Bhola Singh asked him (Chand Singh) as to what he is looking for and that let he (complainant) be taught a lesson for taking the Crl.Rev.No.1925 of 2008 (O&M) 3 possession of Abadi and that on his saying so, Chand Singh gave him 2-3 dang blows on his right arm upon which he (complainant) told Chand Singh that he does not want to take the possession of the Abadi and he be not be beaten but despite of this, Chand Singh again gave him several dang blows on his left leg as a result of which, he fell down and that while he was lying fallen on the ground, Bhola Singh gave him one dang blow on his right leg and other dang blow on his right foot and he raised raula of 'Mar ditta- Mar ditta' and that on hearing his raula, Mohinder Singh son of Bachan Singh r/o kuhli Kalan and his brother Jarnail Singh, who both from the village were coming towards him reached there and witnessed the entire occurrence with their own eyes and that on seeing them, Chand Singh and Bhola Singh after causing him injuries run away from the spot along with their dangs. He stated that reason behind the occurrence that a dispute between him and Chand Singh regarding Abadi aforesaid was pending in the Session Court which was decided in his favour on 14.5.1996 and that he (complainant) was asking for possession but Chand Singh etc. to avoid to hand over the possession of the same had caused him injuries and that thereafter Jarnail Singh made arrange for a conveyance and got him Crl.Rev.No.1925 of 2008 (O&M) 4 admitted into CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the investigation was started. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR had been duly explained by the prosecution and the trial Court had erred in acquitting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the charge framed against them. In Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501, it has been held that importance of the report could hardly be over estimated from the stand point of the accused. Delay in lodging the FIR quite often result in embellishment which was a creature of afterthought. It was therefore, essential that the delay in lodging the First Information Report should be satisfactorily explained. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 8.7.1996 at 7 a.m. The statement of the complainant was, however, recorded on 10.7.1996 at 8.30 p.m. and the FIR was registered on 12.7.1996 at 4 p.m. Investigating Officer- ASI Dilawar Singh (PW-3), while appearing in the witness box had deposed that on 9.7.1996 at about 10 a.m., he met the doctor in CMC, Ludhiana. However, he (Investigating Officer) failed to disclose the name of the doctor, who had allegedly given his opinion that the patient was not fit to make a statement. The fact that the doctor had declared the injured unfit to make a statement at 10 a.m. on 9.7.1996 was stated by the Crl.Rev.No.1925 of 2008 (O&M) 5 Investigating Officer in his cross-examination but nothing was deposed by him in his examination-in-chief with regard to any application made by him before the doctor seeking opinion regarding fitness of the injured to make a statement. Hence, the learned trial Court had rightly held that the Investigating Officer had miserably failed to establish that the doctor had ever opined the injured to be unfit for recording statement on 9.7.1996. The Investigating Officer has further failed to establish that as to when he received opinion of the doctor declaring the injured fit to make a statement. In these circumstances, the delay in recording of the statement of the injured gains significance. The possibility of a false version having been introduced or the involvement of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this case falsely cannot be ruled out. Hence, the impugned judgment calls for no interference. 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 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. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal Crl.Rev.No.1925 of 2008 (O&M) 6 cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE February 04, 2009 anita