IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 Date of decision: 12th February, 2009 Teja Singh … Petitioner Versus Binder Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Teja Singh son of Moti Singh against Binder Singh alias Balwinder Singh and Balbir Kaur alias Birpal Kaur, who were tried in case FIR No. 76 dated 26.10.1999 registered at Police Station Joga under Sections 302, 506, 341 IPC. Accused respondents were acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa vide judgment and order dated 1st February, 2001. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 25th October, 1999 Teja Singh had made a statement (Ex. PB) to Bant Singh ASI, wherein he stated that he was a resident of village Burj Rathi and was an agriculturist. Balbir Kaur accused was married to his son Nachhatar Singh about seven years ago. Date of marriage was said to be before 26th October, 1999. Balbir Kaur had given birth to a son aged three years and a daughter Sandeep Kaur aged six years. It was stated by the complainant that his daughter-in-law Balbir Kaur had developed illicit relations with Binder Singh co-accused. Binder Singh used to come to meet Binder Kaur to the Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 annoyance of Nachhatar Singh. On the night intervening 14th and 15th October, 1999, Teja Singh complainant and his wife Surjit Kaur were sleeping in the courtyard and Nachhatar Singh along with his wife and children was sleeping inside a room of the house. At about 11.00 p.m. a person entered into the room of Nachhatar Singh. Light was switched on and Teja Singh got up and went towards the room of Nachhatar Singh. Balbir Kaur had held Nachhatar Singh by his arms, whereas Binder Singh, who had entered the room, gave leg blows on the stomach of Nachhatar Singh. Nachhatar Singh raised alarm, upon which Surjit Kaur got up and came in the room. On the alarm raised by Teja Singh and Surjit Kaur, Binder Singh and Balbir Kaur left the spot. Occurrence in the present case, has taken place on 14th October, 1999 at 11.00 p.m. Nachhatar Singh died on 26th October, 1999. Thereafter, the present FIR was lodged. Autopsy on the dead body of Nachhatar Singh was conducted by Dr.O.P. Aggarwal PW-4. He found following injuries: “Diffused swelling over the abdomen was present. Abdominal wall was pale and yellow in colour. On opening the abdominal cavity it was full of dark coloured fluid mixed with facial matter. There was foul smelling. Laceration of light lobe of liver was seen. Multiple ruptures of large intestines were present. The urinal contained 200 CC of injured. The stomach was empty.” It was opined by the trial Court as under: “The cause of death in the opinion of the Doctor was due to shock heamorrahage and septicaemia resulting from ante-mortem injuries, on the abdomen of the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.” 2 Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 The Doctor further opined that injuries on the person of Nachhatar Singh could be the result of kick blows on the abdomen. Teja Singh PW-2 and Surjit Kaur PW-3 appeared as eye witnesses. Trial Court held that the conduct of Teja Singh PW-2 and Surjit Kaur PW-3 was highly unnatural and improbable. Taking various factors into consideration, the trial Court came to the conclusion that they were not eye witnesses of the occurrence. Trial Court further took into consideration the delay in lodging of the report and held that prosecution version is doubtful. Court further held that Nachhatar Singh remained alive after 26th October, 1999 and for a period of 13 days, he had not told regarding the occurrence to the police, relatives or parents. The Court further held that Dr.Kiran Garg PW-1, to whose clinic Nachhatar Singh was allegedly taken at the first instance has not supported the prosecution case regarding his admission. Court further held that Dr.Kulwant Singh PW-6 admitted during cross-examination that there was no injury on the large lobe of liver or large intestines of Nachhatar Singh. Dr.Karamjit Singh PW-5 during cross- examination stated that there was one or two symptoms of typhoid in relation to the injury on the person of Nachhatar Singh. He further stated that if urinal and stool did not pass, then some of the symptoms of injury No.1, on the person of Nachhatar Singh, would be associated. The Court further held that Dr.Gurvail Singh PW-10 had stated that Nachhatar Singh was treated. He was thoroughly examined, investigated and diagnosed as a case of intestinal obstruction with peritonitis with jaundice. He further admitted in his cross-examination that Nachhatar Singh died on account of intestinal obstruction with peritonitis with Jaundice. The trial Court further held that it could not be said that simply that death of Nachhatar Singh was caused on account of alleged violence. No State appeal has been filed. The findings given by the Court below suffer from no infirmity. 3 Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 It was held in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another, relying upon D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 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 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 4 Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 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 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 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; 5 Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 (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 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, 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. 6 Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907, the High Court has been reminded of its very limited jurisdiction in revision against acquittal. 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 petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 12, 2009 rps 7