Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 Date of Decision: 26.4.2011 Harnek Singh and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Paramjit Singh, his father Tara Singh, deceased and son Devinder Singh were named as accused in case FIR No. 166 dated 24.9.1999, registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, under Sections 307, 323 and 34 IPC. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, vide its judgment dated 24.12.2002, had disbelieved the version spelt out in the FIR and in a private complaint, filed by respondent No.2 Paramjit Singh, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced. Complainant-Paramjit Singh and his co- accused were acquitted of the charges in the above said FIR. The acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4, recorded by the Court Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 2 of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, has been assailed by the petitioners in the present revision petition. As per the certificate issued by the Advocate General, Punjab, on 29.1.2003, the State has opted not to file any appeal against acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4. The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by Jinder Singh. It has been stated by him that on 23.9.1999, Binder Kaur, wife of his brother, was coming back to the house after paying obeisance from Gurudwara Sahib. When she was passing through in front of the house of respondent No.2-Paramjit Singh, he had made an obscene gesture to Binder Kaur upon which an objection was raised by her. Binder Kaur then went to her house and at about 7.30 P.M. Sher Singh, Bahadur Singh and Piara Singh went to the house of Paramjit Singh to make a protest for having teased the woman of their family. It is stated that Devinder Singh was armed with .12 bore rifle and Tara Singh and Paramjit Singh armed with soti were found present there. Devinder Singh had fired two shots and injured Bahadur Singh and Jinder Singh. The trial Court, taking totality of the circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the complainant party had trespassed into the house of accused Paramjit Singh armed with deadly weapons. The trial Court, while recording acquittal of the accused, gave the following findings:- “21. The accused have taken the plea of self- defence and the evidence adduced on the record duly establishes the plea so raised by the accused. It is an admitted and proved fact that accused Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 3 Paramjit Singh made some indecent gesture towards Smt. Binder Kaur and in order to lodge a complaint to the father of Paramjit Singh, the complainant party had come to the house of the accused. It is further a proved fact that at that time, accused were armed with weapons i.e. gandassa and sticks. In case, the complainant party was just to lodge a protest, they would not have been armed with the weapons. It is further in evidence that the complainant party caused injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh with gandassa and sticks. The injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh have been proved on the record by the statement of PW.3 Dr. Harinder Sharma who has, in his cross-examination, admitted that on 23.9.1999, he has medico-legally examined Paramjit Singh and found three injuries on his person, out of which, one injury was caused with sharp weapon and the other with blunt weapon. The medico-legal examination of Paramjit Singh has been proved on record as Ex.DB. Thus, the accused more especially, Paramjit Singh fired shots from his gun in order to scare the complainant party and to defend his person as well as from restraining the complainant party from causing hurt to him and his father. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my opinion, is sufficient to hold that it Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 4 was the complainant party, which was aggressor in the present case since they have entered into the house of the accused and caused injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh...” The above said finding returned by the trial Court is neither perfunctory nor perverse and on appreciation of the evidence, such finding is possible. In appeal against acquittal, one view is possible that the Courts are very hesitant to disturb the findings of acquittal. The parameters to cause interference in revision petition are more strict. It was held in Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and Another, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707, relying upon D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 Supreme Court 196, as under: “Only two grounds are mentioned by this Court as entitling the High Court to set aside an acquittal in a revision and to order a retrial. They are that there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. In explaining these two propositions, this Court further states that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. Again, in Logendranath Jha v. Polajlal Biswas, 1951 SCR 676 (AIR 1951 SC 316), this Court points out that the High Court is entitled in revision to set aside an acquittal if there is an error on a point of law or no appraisal of the Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 5 evidence at all. This Court observes that it is not sufficient to say that the judgment under revision is “perverse” or “lacking in true correct perspective”. It is pointed out further that by ordering a retrial, the dice is loaded against the accused, because however much the High Court may caution the Subordinate Court, it is always difficult to re-weigh the evidence ignoring the opinion of the High Court. Again in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1963 (3) SCR 412 = (AIR 1962 SC 1788), it is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court. As stated not one of these points which have been laid down by this Court, was covered in the present case. In fact on reading the judgment of the High Court it is apparent to us that the learned judge has re-weighed the evidence from his own point of view Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 6 and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions judge on almost every point. This we do not conceive to be his duty in dealing in revision with an acquittal when Government has not chosen to file an appeal against it. In other words, the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.” In Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352), Hon'ble apex Court observed as under: “This Court then proceeded to observe that the High Court is certainly entitled in revision to set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but it was emphasized that this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when “there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.” In face of prohibition in Section 439(4), Cr.P.C., for the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, it makes all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering re-trial. No doubt, in the opinion of this Court, no criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for attracting the High Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 7 Court’s power of ordering re-trial can be laid down. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision: i) Where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; ii) Where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; iii) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; iv) Where the material evidence has been over-looked only (either?) by the trial Court or by the appellate Court; and v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 8 the order of acquittal. In Mahendra Pratap Singh, (1968) 2 SCR 287 = (AIR 1968 SC 707) (supra) the position was again reviewed and the rule laid down in the three earlier cases reaffirmed. In that case the reading of the judgment of the High Court made it plain that it had re- weighed the evidence from its own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions Judge on almost every point. This court pointed out that it was not the duty of the High Court to do so while dealing with an acquittal on revision, when the Government had not chosen to file an appeal against it. “In other words” said this Court, “the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.” Similar view was reiterated by Hon'ble apex Court in Bansi Lal and Others vs. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444. Again, Hon'ble apex Court, in Ramu alias Ram Kumar and Others v. Jagannath, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 181, held that it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. In Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and Another (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2907, the High Court has been reminded of its very limited jurisdiction in revision against acquittal. Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 9 It is well settled that unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial or patent illegality is pointed out, the revisional Court will not interfere. I find no merit in the instant revision petition to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction as learned counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 26, 2011 “DK”