Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997
Date of Decision: 5.3.2009
Vidya Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
Gurdial Singh and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
None for the respondents.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed by Vidya Devi against the
acquittal of Gurdial Singh, Tilak Raj and Wassan Singh, who were tried
in case FIR No. 124 dated 29.9.1993 registered at Police Station
Gurdaspur, under Sections 307, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner
has very fairly stated that the State has opted not to file any appeal
against the acquittal of the accused/respondents.
Revisional Court has very limited powers in a revision against
acquittal.
Briefly stated that Dass Ram stated that on 24.9.1993 at
about 5.30 P.M. he was returning to his house and when he reached
near the house of Gian Chand, he heard the cries of “SAVE SAVE”. He
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 2
reached the house of Gian Chand where he found Gurdial Singh, and
Wassan Singh armed with dang and Tilak Raj armed with kirch inside
the haveli of Gian Chand. They were causing injuries to D.C. Alias
Jagdish and Vidya Devi wife of Gian Chand. Gurdial Singh gave dang
blow to Prem Lal on various parts of his body. Wassan Singh gave
several dang blows to D.C. Alias Jagdish. After receiving injuries D.C.
alias Jagdish had fallen on the ground. Vidya Devi came forward to
rescue him then Tilak Raj caught hold of her and dragged her and also
gave a kirch blow in her stomach. Gurdial Singh and Wassan Singh had
also given dang blows to Vidya Devi. When she fell down on the ground
then Dass Ram came forward to rescue the injured. Gurdial Singh
caught hold of him and Wassan Singh gave him dang blow hitting him
on the right arm. Another dang blow was given in left thigh and Tilak Raj
gave kirch blow on his left hand. The injured were medicolegally
examined and Medico Legal Reports were prepared.
Three injuries were found on the person of Vidya Devi. Out of
three injuries, two injuries were surgical injuries and third injury was
kept under observation for operation. The third injury was declared as
dangerous to life. Injuries No.1 and 2 were blunt but Vidya Devi was not
radiologically examined, therefore, injury No.3 was declared as simple.
The doctors were examined to prove medicolegal evidence
Dass Ram, appeared as PW.6, Vidya Devi appeared as PW.7
and they deposed regarding the manner in which the injuries were
caused to them.
Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 3
Accused Gurdial Singh pleaded alibi and stated that he was
present in the office of Punjab State Electricity Board at Ranjit Bagh.
Tilak Raj accused stated that he was having relation with Asha
Rani daughter of Vidya Devi. He met Asha Rani per chance in the street
and Vidya Devi did not approve the same and Vidya Devi and D.C. alias
Jagdish gave injuries to him. On this his brother Karnail Chand arrived at
the spot. He gave push to Vidya Devi and she fell down on a wooden
peg and received injuries in her stomach.
Wassan Singh stated that he was falsely implicated in the
case.
In defence, DW.1 Karnail Chand was examined by Tilak Raj.
D.W.2 Joginder Singh, Junior Engineer, Punjab State
Electricity Board and DW.3 Vinod Kumar were examined by Gurdial
Singh to prove his alibi.
The trial Court took into consideration the fact that the FIR
was lodged after five days. Prosecution had failed to furnish any
explanation regarding the delay. The Court further placed reliance upon
the testimony of PW.1 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh who stated that injury No.3
could be suffered by Vidya Devi as a result of falling on broken pieces of
glass or any other sharp object. The Court further held that PW.4 Dr.
Rajiv Rampal, who had performed operation, had not stated that the
injury was dangerous to life. The Court further held that prosecution
suffers from blemish of improbabilities, contradictions and
improvements. The Court further took into consideration the fact that
Prem Lal and DC alias Jagdish were not medicolegally examined. The
Court further held that two dang blows have been attributed to Gurdial
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 4
Singh and Wassan Singh. No corresponding injuries have been found
on the person of Vidya Devi rather injuries No.1 and 2 were surgical
injuries and injury No.3 was attributed to Tilak Raj. The Court also
believed the plea of alibi raised by Gurdial Singh.
This Court examined the entire case law in Smt. Sushila
Kumari v. State of Haryana and Others 2008 Criminal Law Journal
2709 and has held as under:-
“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
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 5316), 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
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 6list 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 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
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 7observe 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
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 8interfering 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 evidencehas 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)
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 9(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
Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 1997 10
Singh vs. 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.
Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
March 5, 2009
“DK”