Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 647 (RAJ)

Kulwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2003-04-29

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the judgment dated 13.3.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Srikaranpur in Criminal Appeal No. 86/91 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence u/ss. 342, 323 and 504 IPC as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karanpur vide judgment and order dated 19.10.1991 passed in Criminal Case No. 141/1987, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 250/- each from Rs. 750/- each to be paid to Mukand Singh PW-2. Further the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Karanpur vide its order dated 19.10.1991 instead of sentencing the accused petitioner for offence u/ss. 342, 323 and 504 IPC has given them benefit of probation which was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur in appeal. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) On 31.1.1987 PW-2 Mukand Singh lodged a report Ex.P/6 with the Police Station, Kesrisinghpur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar stating that on 30.1.1987 at about 6.00-7.00 p.m. he went to the house of Bikar Singh for taking his wages, but the accused petitioners abused him with filthy language and also beat him. After that they took him to their house and closed him inside a room. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/6 that when his brother PW-6 Chand Singh came to know about the incident, he along with PW-1 Amarjeet Singh went to the house of the accused petitioners, then the accused petitioners also abused his brother PW-6 Chand Singh etc. etc., 3. On this report, police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/5 and started investigation. 4. The investigation was conducted by PW-7 Baldeo Singh and after investigation, the police filed challan for offence u/ss. 323, 342 and 504/34 IPC. 5. That the contents of offence u/ss. 343, 323 and 504/34 IPC were read over to the accused petitioners on 25.4.1989. 6. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. The accused petitioners in their statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution and examined DW-1 Titar Singh in defence. 7. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate through his judgment and order dated 19.10.1991 convicted the accused petitioners for offence u/ss. The accused petitioners in their statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution and examined DW-1 Titar Singh in defence. 7. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate through his judgment and order dated 19.10.1991 convicted the accused petitioners for offence u/ss. 342, 323 and 504 IPC, but instead of sentencing them, the learned Trial Magistrate released them on probation and also directed them to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 750/- each to Mukand Singh PW-2. 8. Against the judgment and order dated 19.10.1991 passed by-the learned Magistrate, the accused petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur who by his judgment dated 13.3.1992 while affirming the conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offence reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 750/- each to 250/- each. 9. Aggrieved from the judgment dated 13.3.1992, the present revision petition has been filed. 10. In this revision petition following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners: (i) That since PW-2 Mukand Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that he lodged verbal report of the incident and he did not file written report, therefore, the whole story of the prosecution should be discarded and the accused petitioners should be acquitted. (ii) That the case of prosecution does not get support from the evidence of independent witness and from this point of view also, the accused petitioners should have been given the benefit of doubt. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any basic infirmity and illegality and hence the same deserves to be confirmed one. 12. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case. 13. Before proceeding further, first injury report Ex.P/7 of PW-7 Mukand Singh has to be seen. The injury report Ex.P/7 has been proved by PW-8 Dr. Jaswant Singh and a perusal of the injury report Ex.P/7 shows that Mukand Singh PW-2 received as many as 9 injuries on his person which were all simple in nature. Thus, the fact that PW-2 Mukand Singh received the injuries as mentioned in injury report Ex.P/7 is well proved. 14. The injury report Ex.P/7 has been proved by PW-8 Dr. Jaswant Singh and a perusal of the injury report Ex.P/7 shows that Mukand Singh PW-2 received as many as 9 injuries on his person which were all simple in nature. Thus, the fact that PW-2 Mukand Singh received the injuries as mentioned in injury report Ex.P/7 is well proved. 14. PW-2 Mukand Singh has clearly stated in his statement that these injuries were caused by the accused petitioners and his statement further gets I corroboration from the statement of his brother Chand Singh PW-6. No doubt independent witness PW-1 Amarjeet Singh whose name is found in the report Ex.P/6 has been declared hostile, but simply because independent witness has been declared hostile, the statements of PW-2 Mukand Singh and PW-6 Chand Singh cannot be discarded as their statements get corroboration from the medical evidence and, therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 19.10.1991 and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 13.3.1992 do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality. 15. So far as the point that PW-2 Mukand Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not lodge the written report is concerned, it may be stated here that simply because he has admitted this fact, the whole prosecution story cannot be thrown away as the object of FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion. If for the sake of arguments, no written report was lodged by PW-2 Mukand Singh for which regular FIR Ex.P/6 was chalked out, it cannot be said that no such incident took place and further more, when there is medical evidence in this case, which supports the prosecution case, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that no such incident took place. Hence, this argument stands rejected. 16. So far as the point that there are minor contradictions in the statements of PW-2 Mukand Singh and PW-6 Chand Singh is concerned, in my opinion, they are natural one and since, in this case, there is medical evidence which support the prosecution case, such minor contradictions and omissions do not affect the testimony of PW-2 Mukand Singh and PW-6 Chand Singh. 17. 17. The Court is aware that revisional jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on the point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. But it. is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exercise. The High Court does not ordinarily review the evidence in criminal revision against conviction by both the Courts below unless there is some glaring irregularity or serious illegality committed by both the Courts below in reading the evidence. 18. In criminal revision, the High Court can interfere erroneous finding recorded by the Courts below when they have convicted the accused petitioner on no evidence or misread the evidence. 19. In the present case, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and there is no basic infirmity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The present case is not a case of no evidence and misreading of evidence. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly this revision petition filed by the accused petitioners is dis- missed after confirming judgment dated 13.3.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 86/91.Revision petition dismissed. *******