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 2
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.”Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 3
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.
Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 4
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
Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 5which 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;
Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 6
(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.
Criminal Revision No. 576 of 2001 7
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