Criminal Revision No.1947 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1947 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 19, 2009 Jarnail Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Surender Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina, J. Respondents-Surender Singh and Harbalinder Singh were tried for an offence under Sections 341,342 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in FIR No. 93 dated 29.10.2001 registered at Police Station Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar. Vide impugned judgment dated 1.2.2008, they were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “In brief the case of the prosecution as per final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is that on 29.10.2001 Jarnail Singh approached Station House Officer, Police Station Khizrabad and gave his statement to the effect that he had been employed by Criminal Revision No.1947 of 2008 2 Sardar Jagdeep Singh. On that day at about 7.00 a.m. when he was on his way to home, Harbalinder S/o Surjit Singh, Surender S/o Kashmir Singh etc. came on their motor cycle and restrained him. They brought him to the fields of Jagdeep Singh and tied him with cloth. They brought him to the house of Surender Singh at Khizrabad and tied him with trees. They gave injury on his buttock, thigh etc. He made noise, on listening which Suleman etc. came on the spot. On seeing them the accused fled away. He prayed to take appropriate action against the accused. 3. On the basis of this information, formal FIR was registered. Preliminary investigation was initated and the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested. Thereafter, on completion of other necessary formalities of investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and the challan was presented in the Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had inflicted injuries on the person of the petitioner. The said injuries were duly corroborated by medical evidence. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 29.10.2001 at about 7.00 a.m.. As per the petitioner, he was on his way to home, when he was on way laid by respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner was brought to the fields of Jagdeep Singh where he was tied with a tree and injuries were inflicted on his person by respondents No. 1 and 2. PW3 Suleman did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Criminal Revision No.1947 of 2008 3 So far as PW2 Sarwan Singh is concerned, he supported the prosecution case . When he was cross-examined, he stated that Sohan Singh had told him that his son had been picked up. He was present at home at that time. Sohan Singh had seen that the petitioner had been tied with a tree and he had rescued the petitioner from the clutches of respondents No. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly observed that Swaran Singh was not an eye witness to the occurrence but had deposed as per the information given to him by Sohan Singh. With regard to the injuries on the person of the petitioner, Dr.Ramesh, while appearing in the witness box as PW5, deposed that the possibility of the injuries having been suffered from fall on some hard surface could not be ruled out. A perusal of the injuries suffered by the petitioner as reproduced in para 13 of the judgment shows that the petitioner had suffered reddish discoloration of skin and complained of pain and general ache in the whole body. Learned trial Court while dealing with the statement of the petitioner has observed in paras 15 and 16 of its judgment as under:- “15.A perusal of cross-examination of complainant reveals that he was the servant with Jagdeep. He showed his ignorance about any litigation of Jagdeep with accused. He specifically denied the fact that a false case has been foisted at the instance of Jagdeep Singh. However, Swaran Singh (PW2) has admitted the fact that Jagdeep Singh and accused are quarrelsome and are not at good terms. They used to visit police station after every two three days. He further stated that his son was the servant of Jagdeep Singh, Criminal Revision No.1947 of 2008 4 meaning thereby Jarnail has special knowledge of litigation. However, the interesting witness of prosecution, Jarnail Singh had showed his ignorance about litigation with Jagdeep Singh, his master with the accused. When the relation between the master of the complainant and Jagdeep are sour, it can be said that a false case might have been foisted against the accused. 16. The complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that in the morning many persons used to pass on the passage. He did not make noise when accused picked him. He did not make noise when he was tied with tree. He made noise only when the accused started beating him. The act and conduct of the complainant Jarnail Singh is not as a person of ordinary prudence. A person of ordinary prudence would make a noise when some person would pick him and tie with the trees. Moreover when he appeared in witness box he stated that the accused brought him to the tubewell room of Jarnail Singh and removed some goods after opening the lock. This court has failed to understand how the accused party got the possession of the keys of the room belonging to Jagdeep. This fact has not been disclosed by complainant in his statement given to police. When numerous persons were present on his way to home, it is highly improbable that nobody has noticed the accused while picking up the complainant.” Thus, the petitioner was working as a servant with Jagdeep Singh, who was having some litigation with respondents No. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the learned trial Court while Criminal Revision No.1947 of 2008 5 acquitting respondents No. 1 and 2 of the charge framed against them are sound reasons. The possibility that the petitioner had been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. 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 a retrial. A finding of acquittal, as per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned order does not call for interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. The application seeking condonatin of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (Sabina) Judge May 19,2009 arya