Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 69 (RAJ)

Radhe Shyam v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC, the complainant-petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.09.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), by which the trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 of the offences under Sections 448 and 323, IPC. 2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for decision of this criminal revision petition, are that on 13.08.1996, at about 2:20 P.M., complainant-petitioner lodged an FIR with Police Station, Purani Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar, inter alia, stating therein that he had taken on rent the shop of accused-respondent Diwakar Walia since last 9 years. The accused-respondent Ratnakar asked the complainant-petitioner to vacate the shop within one month and on being intervened by complainant-petitioners relatives, three months time was agreed to be allowed for vacating the shop. However, on 13.08.1996, at about 9:00 A.M., accused-respondent Ratnakar came to his shop, gave him beatings, hurled out abuses, threatened to put the shop to fire and also gave threaten to his life. It was further stated in the FIR that at about 1:00 P.M. (in the afternoon), the accused-respondents and absconded co-accused Sheokaran came to his shop, gave him beatings, took away the currency from the chest lying in the shop and broke the glass of the counter. It was further stated in the FIR that Mahendra Kumar and Mukesh intervened and saved him. On this report, the police registered the case under Sections 452, 323, 379, 427 read with Section 34, IPC and after investigation, filed challan against the accused-respondents; however, on account of absconding, co-accused Sheokaran could not be arrested. The trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC. After trial, vide impugned Judgment , the trial Court, disbelieving the prosecution case, acquitted the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner-complainant has preferred this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment and order impugned. 4. In the instant case, no independent eye-witness has been examined by the prosecution. PW. 1 Radhe Shyam is the complainant himself , PW. 2 Mahendra Kumar is his real brother and PW. 3 Mukesh is the nephew of the complainant-petitioner. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment and order impugned. 4. In the instant case, no independent eye-witness has been examined by the prosecution. PW. 1 Radhe Shyam is the complainant himself , PW. 2 Mahendra Kumar is his real brother and PW. 3 Mukesh is the nephew of the complainant-petitioner. These witnesses have stated that the accused-respondents and co-accused Sheokaran gave beatings to the complainant by Lathis, but PW. 4 Dr. B.M. Sharma, who medically examined the complainant, had found only one abrasion on the rear portion of left knee of the complainant and apart from this single and simple injury, the doctor has stated that the complainant was complaining pain on the neck, shoulders and hands but there was no visible injury except the abrasion. Thus, the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who are interested witnesses. Had the four persons given beatings by Lathis, fist and kick blows, then there could not have been a single injury, that too on the rear side of the left knee. Absence of any other visible injury negatives the prosecution case and creates a doubt in the trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses. 5. Likewise, complainant-petitioner PW. 1 Radhe Shyam, in his statement, has deposed that accused-respondent Diwakar came to his shop in the morning at about 9:00 P.M. and gave him beatings but there is no mention to this effect in the FIR. Again, prosecution could not prove its case so far as taking away the currency notes of Rs. 8,000/-by the accused is concerned. The trial Court has discussed in details the material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses and arrived at the conclusion that the witnesses are inter se relatives and being interested persons, they are supporting the cause of the complainant. The trial Court believed the defence version that for vacating the shop, the complainant was demanding some money and on being refused to do so, a false case has been registered against them. On careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the candid view that the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court are based on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence and thee is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment warranting interference by this Court under revisional jurisdiction. 6. On careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the candid view that the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court are based on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence and thee is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment warranting interference by this Court under revisional jurisdiction. 6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The State has not challenged the order impugned of acquittal. 7. In Harihar Chakravarty vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1952 SC 266, the Honble Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant. 8. It is settled law that the revisional power of the High Court under Section 401, CrPC is discretionary which has to be exercised to correct miscarriage of justice, but whether or not there is justification to exercise or not to exercise such discretionary power, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. In Jagannath Choudhary vs. Ramayan Singh, 2002 (5) SCC 659 , the Honble Supreme Court held that the object of revisional jurisdiction, as envisaged under Section 401, CrPC, is to confer upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment, which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to the individuals. Where the Court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned Judgment or order, the revision, cannot succeed. The jurisdictional sweep of the High Court under the provisions of Section 401, CrPC is very much circumscribed. 10. Instant is not a case which may require exercise of revisional power as there is no question of miscarriage of justice. The impugned order of acquittal is based on sound and proper appreciation of evidence and after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent, hence no interference in the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court is called for. 11. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly.