Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006
Date of decision: 16.3.2009
Harsarup Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
Jaspal Singh and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Ms.Upinder Kaur Bedi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
****
SABINA, J.
Jaspal Singh, Kuldip Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Ram
Chand-respondent Nos.1 to 4 were tried for an offence under
Sections 341/ 325/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.66
dated 19.7.2003 registered at Police Station Sadar, Julkan. However,
they were acquitted vide judgment dated 25.2.2006 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala. Aggrieved by the same,
Harsarup-petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision
petition.
The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court
in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-
“The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.7.2003 ASI
Nirmal Singh along with police party was present at T-
Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 2point Chhana Mour, in connection with patrolling. The
complainant Kartar Singh got recorded his statement
before him Ex.P1, whereby he has reported that on
18.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. after finishing his work he
was going towards his village from bus stand Devigarh.
When he reached near Ghaghar bridge he saw accused
Jaspal Singh, Kuldip Singh, Gurjit Singh and Ram Chand
coming on Swaraj Tractor, which was driven by Gurjit
Singh. They stopped the tractor near the complainant.
He has reported that Jaspal Singh asked him that today
they will teach him lesson for pursuing the case against
them and has also abused him. Gurjit Singh and Ram
Chand caught hold of the complainant and Kuldip Singh
gave a hockey blow on the left tample of the forehead.
He gave another blow, which had broken the teeth of the
complainant. He raised raula Marta Marta. On hearing
his cries the brother of the complainant Har Sarup
reached at the spot and on seeing him all the accused
ran away from the place of occurrence. He has reported
that due to fear he remained at his house that night.
When on 19.7.2003 he was going after taking medicine
from Civil Dispensary Dudhan Sadhan to Rajindera
Hospital and on the way he met Police party and got his
statement recorded.”
Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondents of the charge
framed against them. The complainant had been successful in
proving his case. He had suffered injuries in the alleged occurrence,
which were duly corroborated by the medical evidence.
Occurrence in this case had allegedly taken place on
18.7.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. The respondents had allegedly inflicted
injuries on the person of Kartar Singh (since deceased).
Injured/complainant Kartar Singh had died during the pendency of
the trial on 17.9.2005. FIR in this case was lodged on 19.7.2003.
The delay in lodging of the FIR was, however, not successfully
explained by the injured/complainant. The case of the complainant
was that Kuldip Singh had given a hockey blow on his left temple
and another blow on his mouth, which resulted in breaking of his
tooth. However, learned trial Court has observed that as per the
medical evidence i.e. Medico Legal Report (Ex.P5-A), the incisors
were only found moving and no broken incisor was reported. It has
been further observed that the other injury has also not been
corroborated by the medical evidence as the injured was complaining
of pain in the head, whereas, he (injured) had alleged that the hockey
blow has inflicted on his left temple. No external injury was, however,
seen on the person of the complainant. Complainant was referred
for dental surgeon on 19.7.2003 itself, but he did not approach the
dental surgeon for getting himself examined. The complainant was
Crl.Rev.No. 1573 of 2006 4
examined by the dental surgeon on 16.9.2003 and it was reported
that there was no mobility of adjacent teeth and the tooth has been
completely healed. It was also reported that no significant opinion
regarding the dental injury after two months could be given.
In these circumstance, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. The
reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, are
sound reasons and call for no interference.
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 retrial. As per Section
401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal
cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 16, 2009
anita