Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1295 (PNJ)

Gurmail Singh v. Boga Singh

2004-11-29

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Boga Singh and his wife Angrej Kaur (respondents herein) along with their son Gurdas Singh were booked in case FIR No. 67 dated 7.5.1998 registered under Sections 498A/304B/406/34 IPC at Police Station, Rori. After the completion of the investigation all the three accused were challaned and charged under Sections 406, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC by the trial Court. The present respondents are acquitted vide impugned judgment dated 6.11.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa for all the charges whereas Gurdas Singh, their son was convicted under Sections 498A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. He stands sentenced for seven years under Section 304-B and for three years under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, besides a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo RI for six month. 2. Mr. Deol contends that State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of respondents, hence the instant revision petition. Mr. Dhankar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, confirms the statement. 3. Vide order dated 26.9.2001, notice was issued to the respondents for 6.12.2001. As per the office report dated 5.12.2001, the service was complete. However, no one has turned up for the respondents. Mr. Deol has however rendered the assistance in disposing of the instant petition. 4. The respondents have earned acquittal mainly on the ground that there is no evidence against them to prove the charges. Mr. Deol has once again read the material evidence before me and I do not find by intrinsic infirmity in the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court while acquitting the present respondents. 5. The scope of revision against the acquittal has been well discussed by the Honble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias R.P. Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 61, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It was further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. It was further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. It was further observed by their Lordships that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate Court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a re-trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused, and that itself must caution the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. 6. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singhs case (supra), their Lordships have relied upon the decisions in D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196, K.C. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788, Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, (1973)2 SCC 583, Patakalapti Narayana Gajapathi Raju v. Ramapalli Peda Appadu, AIR 1975 SC 1854 and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707, 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant case and following the ratio of the decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh (supra), the acquittal of the respondents is well justified. Even if it is assumed for the sake of an argument that this Court may formulate a different opinion than the one formulated by the trial Court, still this Court will be slow in interfering with the finding of the trial Court unless it is held that the finding is totally perverse. That is not the situation in this case and as such no interference is called for. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.