Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 653 (DEL)

AMRIK SINGH v. BHAGWAN SINGH

2007-03-23

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2007
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition challenges a judgment and order by which the Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused in a complaint case. The petitioner was the complainant and had alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/506 IPC on 03. 10. 87. ( 2 ) AS per the petitioner/complainant, a resident of Ramjas Road, Karol bagh, the accused Bhagwan Singh (who died during the course of the proceedings)was known to him; he was his tenant. The other accused namely, Rajpal Kaur was the wife of the first accused. The material allegations were that on 02. 10. 87, the complainant went to collect rent and when returning and talking to one Shyam sunder in the street, the second accused Rajpal Kaur, without any provocation attacked him and snatched his spectacles. It was also alleged that both the accused assaulted and threw away his turban in order to hurt his religious sentiments. The complainant alleged that one Darshan Lal, who happened to be there, rescued him and informed the police. It was also contended that the articles of the petitioner were recovered and he was medically examined. ( 3 ) THE Court, after considering the pre-summoning evidence, issued process and subsequently notice under Section 251; the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the course of the trial, the complainant relied on the testimony of three witnesses. The principal witnesses were PW-1 Darshan Lal and the Medical Officer. The prosecution also relied upon the testimony of Surender who was not examined at the pre-summoning stage. Darshan Lal had deposed during the pre-summoning stage but his evidence could not be recorded during the trial since he had expired in the meanwhile. The testimony of Surender was that he had witnessed the incident which according to him occurred at 3:00 p. m. on 02. 10. 87 a public holiday whilst he was on his way back home. According to his statement he implicated not only the accused but their two children, who at that time were admittedly minors. ( 4 ) THE trial Court, after considering the materials on record, acquitted the accused. The reasoning of the Court was that the petitioner was unable to prove his case. According to the Court, the petitioner had named one Shyam sunder but was unable to produce him. ( 4 ) THE trial Court, after considering the materials on record, acquitted the accused. The reasoning of the Court was that the petitioner was unable to prove his case. According to the Court, the petitioner had named one Shyam sunder but was unable to produce him. The trial Court dealt with the deposition of Surender explicitly and noticed that he had been cited as a witness at the pre-summoning stage. The Court doubted his statement and even presence, on the basis that 2nd October was a public holiday and it was highly improbable for the witness to be present on that day. It also noticed some discrepancies in the testimony. The witnesses had deposed in the examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examination that the parties were not known to him. Yet, in the evidence he also mentioned the names of the children of the accused. The Court, in addition, noticed that there was some variation between the version of the petitioner/ complainant and that of the witnesses and also that no police official, as claimed by the complainant, had entered the witness box to depose in his favour. ( 5 ) THE petitioner appeared in course of these proceedings and contended that the findings of the trial Court were unsustainable. He stated that Shyam sunder could not be produced as he is a permanent resident of the United States. As far as Darshan Lal was concerned, it was submitted that he fully supported the prosecution version but could not be examined during the trial because of his untimely demise. The petitioner relied upon the testimony of Surender and the Medical Officer, Dr. Ravi Kakker to say that they sufficiently proved the incident and the involvement of the accused in it. He, therefore, contended that the lower Courts fell into error and that this Court should, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 397/ 401, interfere with the same. ( 6 ) I have heard considered material on record which include the copies of the material testimonies led in the trial Court and the judgment of the trial court. The Court carefully considered the testimony of the principal witness, namely, Surender. It also contrasted it with the version of the complainant including the pre-summoning evidence and concluded that the allegations made were not true and were improbable. The Court carefully considered the testimony of the principal witness, namely, Surender. It also contrasted it with the version of the complainant including the pre-summoning evidence and concluded that the allegations made were not true and were improbable. ( 7 ) THE revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/401 is extremely limited. In fact Section 401 (3) expressly enacts a bar for the exercise of jurisdiction inasmuch as a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction. Even otherwise, the authorities are clear as to the jurisdiction of the Court; it is extremely limited. The Court, if fully satisfied that the findings and materials on record disclose a palpable error or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, can intervene and in extremely exceptional circumstances, remit the matter for re-trial. I find no such miscarriage of justice or exceptional features in this case to adopt such a course. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.