Criminal Revision No. 514 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 514 of 2003 Date of decision: 14.10.2011 Urmila ...Petitioner Versus Raj Pal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The present revision is filed by the complainant against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, acquitting the respondents/accused in this case for an offence under Section 304/34 IPC registered against them on 04.05.1998 at police station Ateli. The prosecution case is based on the complaint filed by Prabhu Dayal (PW10). As per the version, the theft was committed in the house of his brother Hanuman. Hanuman suspected that this theft was committed by Prabhu Dayal and his other family members including Parkash Chand, who is the deceased. Hanuman reported the matter to police and on the basis of this, FIR dated 27.04.1998 was registered under Section 457/380 IPC. On 03.05.1998, SHO, Police Station, Ateli convened a meeting of the residents of village Kariya to sort out the matter. The said meeting was attended by Prabhu Dayal, Mukesh, Om Parkash etc. on the one hand and by Criminal Revision No. 514 of 2003 2 Hanuman, Tara Chand and Rajpal etc. on the other. The matter could not be resolved. The meeting was adjourned. While returning, Tara Chand and Rajpal were standing at the bus stand of Ateli and Parkash Chand and Shiri Ram were also standing there. Some altercation took place between Rajpal and Parkash Chand leading to grappling of the two. They exchanged slaps as well. Siri Ram intervened to separate them and both Rajpal and Tara Chand left the place. Rajpal allegedly threatened Parkash Chand that he will kill him on the next available opportunity. The prosecution story, thereafter, further proceeds to allege that on the same day at 9/9.30 p.m., Tara Chand and Rajpal went to village Kariya alongwith some other persons. Parkash Chand was also found at the house of Prabhu Dayal. They inquired about the whereabouts of Parkash Chand and Prabhu Dayal and threatened Parkash Chand that he will not be spared. Apprehending danger to his life, Parkash Chand left the house on his motor cycle. Rajpal alongwith 4/5 persons allegedly followed on three scooters. It is alleged that apprehending danger, Parkash Chand drove the motorcycle at fast speed and near the house of Mata Din his motorcycle dashed into the mule cart of one Babu Lal. As a result of this accident, Parkash Chand died at the spot. As per the prosecution story, the respondent-accused had verified the death of Parkash Chand and had then exclaimed in a loud voice saying thank God that Parkash Chand has died. Otherwise, they would have killed him. On this basis, FIR was registered under Section 270/304-A IPC against Babu Lal son of Nand Lal and ultimately challan was filed against him. Criminal Revision No. 514 of 2003 3 Prabhu Dayal, in the meantime, moved an application alleging that Babu Lal has been wrongly challaned infact the real culprit to cause the death of Parkash Chand were the present respondents. On this basis, they were proceeded against and ultimately charged for an offence under Section 304/34 IPC. The trial Judge after analyzing the evidence has come into conclusion that from the facts as narrated, no offence under Section 304 read with 34 IPC is made out. In support, reference is made to the case of Joginder Singh and another Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1876. The facts in the case of Joginder Singh (supra) apparently appear similar to the facts of the present case, where the deceased apparently was chased by Joginder Singh when he jumped into the well in order to save himself. On this basis, the acquittal of Joginder Singh and Balwinder Singh for an offence under Section 299 IPC was upheld. In this case also, basically, the deceased had died on account of his motorcycle colliding with mule cart. Even if the story that he was being chased and for that he had to drive at the fast speed, is accepted by no stretch of imagination, it would satisfy the ingredient of offence under Section 304 IPC. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Court while interfering in the appeal and revision from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Courts, is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and can come to an independent conclusions, but this is not to be done as a matter of routine as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (10) SCC 461. The revisional Court Criminal Revision No. 514 of 2003 4 would generally interfere if the view formed is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial Court is not based on any material on record. Otherwise, it should not interfere merely because another conclusion is possible to reverse the finding of the trial Court. I do not see any perversity in the view taken by the trial Court. No case for interference in the order is made out. Dismissed. October 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE