Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 582 (PNJ)

Mam Raj v. Jagdish Singh

2006-02-21

VIRENDER SINGH

body2006
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Jagdish Singh respondent No. 1 had earned acquittal vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 16.11.1998 in a case FIR No. 63 dated 9.12.1994, registered at Police Station Lalru under Section 302 IPC. He was also charged for the same offence. The record reveals that the State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal as is clear from the certificate issued by the office of Advocate General, Punjab. 2. Since no one has come present on behalf of either petitioner or respondent No. 1, I am disposing of the instant revision petition with the assistance of the learned State counsel. I have also gone through the grounds of appeal and the impugned judgment very minutely. 3. Sita Devi is the deceased in this case. She is the wife of Mam Raj. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner has given a danda blow on the head of Sita Devi. As per the allegations, he had come to the house of Sita Devi with an intention to rape her. The occurrence was seen by Mam Raj husband of Sita Devi and one Harmesh. The matter was reported to the police by Mam Raj, the husband of the deceased. 4. As per the medical evidence Sita Devi had received as many as six injuries. Injury No. 5 rather indicates that there are multiple abrasion on her right fore arm. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in this case. The main witnesses are Mam Raj PW7 husband of the deceased, Harmesh PW8, the other so called witness to the occurrence. The stand of the respondent was of false implication. He took a plea that he was taken from his house on December 9, 1994 and subsequently his formal arrest was shown. 5. The learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence has come to a categoric finding that statement of Mam Raj and Harmesh the so-called witnesses to the occurrence is not believable. Their conduct has been dubbed as most improbable. The learned trial court not only disbelieved the eye version account but also observed that the investigation conducted in this case is not upto the mark. 6. Their conduct has been dubbed as most improbable. The learned trial court not only disbelieved the eye version account but also observed that the investigation conducted in this case is not upto the mark. 6. The prosecution agency in order to connect the respondent with the commission of the alleged offence has recorded the statement of one Joginder Singh PW11 before whom respondent Jagdish Singh has confessed his guilt. The said witness did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. 7. Recovery of the weapon of offence Ex. P1 is also not given much significance by the learned trial court for the reason that the case of the prosecution is found to be on slippery footing with regard to the eye version account. Similarly the other recoveries effected by the prosecution during the investigation have also been considered as insignificant. In totality the case of the prosecution has been disbelieved and therefore, the benefit of doubt has been extended towards respondent No. 1. 8. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment on any count which would call for the interference of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. It is well reasoned one based on appreciation of entire evidence. 9. 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 and others v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, 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 is further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different than the one arrived at by 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 is further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different than the one arrived at by 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 is 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. Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand and following the ratio of the Honble Supreme Court, rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singhs case (supra), the petitioner has no case. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.