Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1815 (PNJ)

Amar Nath v. State of Punjab

2012-12-12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No.18053 of 2012 The delay of 15 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons given in the application. The miscellaneous application is accordingly allowed. Crl. Revision No.887 of 2012 1. Challenge by way of this revision petition is to the judgment dated 09.11.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which the judgment of acquittal of respondents no.2 and 3 dated 15.10.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha has been upheld, dismissing the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab. 2. Bhim Sain and Manoj Kumar , respondents no.2 and 3 were sent to stand trial for an offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 482, 506 and 120-B IPC and section 63 Copyrights Act, 1957 by Police Station Gidderbaha in a case registered by way of FIR No. 105 dated 20.09.2002 on the following allegations of facts. 3. Amar Nath, the complainant is a manufacturer of six photos naswar, a snuff which is quite popular in the country. On account of popularity of his product, many persons were jealous of him. Bhim Sain and Manoj Kumar were selling snuff in duplicate packing of the patent of the complainant causing loss to him. With regard to it, the complainant got a case registered in the State of Gujarat for an offence punishable under sections 482 and 420 IPC. Bhim Sain and Manoj Kumar were acquitted in the said case. On 16.07.2002 an anonymous letter was received by the complainant where the name of the complainant was written in English and the letter itself was in Hindi. The threat contained in the letter was of elimination of grandson of the complainant. The complainant got the writing of the letter compared from Anil Kumar Gupta, a document expert and found that the letter was written by Manoj Kumar. On 16.08.2002 when the complainant alongwith one Ashok Kumar was on morning walk, Manoj Kumar and his father Bhim Sain met them and asked the complainant in a taunting manner as to if he has received the threatening letter. They also told him that they would execute their plan as per the contents of the letter to eliminate his grandson, who was a student of Malwa Public School Gidderbaha. 4. They also told him that they would execute their plan as per the contents of the letter to eliminate his grandson, who was a student of Malwa Public School Gidderbaha. 4. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha tried Bhim Sain and Manoj Kumar and vide judgment dated 15.10.2010 found the prosecution to have failed to prove its case and consequently acquitted them. 5. The appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the judgment of acquittal also failed and has been dismissed vide judgment dated 09.11.2011. 6. I have heard Mr.Aman Dhir, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to various parts of the judgment of the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha. According to him, the evidence of comparison of the writing coming in the statements of Anil Kumar Gupta and Navdeep Gupta has been wrongly rejected. He has submitted that the only reason for rejecting that evidence by the courts below is that the comparison has been made of the disputed writing with photostat copy of the specimen writing. According to him, section 73 of the Evidence Act does not lay down any requirement where original document can be compared with only original specimen. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Talwinder Singh, Inspector, Central Excise, appeared as PW-8 and has proved the statement made by Manoj Kumar in his office. According to him, he has proved photostat copy of the statement of Manoj Kumar and that was an authentic document and report of the document expert after comparison of the disputed writing with the photostat of the statement made in the office of Central Excise, could not be discarded. He has further submitted that the other evidence has also been rejected for no valid reason. He has further submitted that learned trial court has tried to make out a point from the fact that grandson of the complainant is not studying in Malwa Public School Gidderbaha. 9. There have been concurrent findings of acquittal in the case. The trial court recorded the finding of acquittal vide judgment dated 15.10.2010 and the said finding has been endorsed by learned Sessions Judge,Sri Muktsar Sahib , vide judgment dated 09.11.2011. The scope of interference in a revision is very limited. 9. There have been concurrent findings of acquittal in the case. The trial court recorded the finding of acquittal vide judgment dated 15.10.2010 and the said finding has been endorsed by learned Sessions Judge,Sri Muktsar Sahib , vide judgment dated 09.11.2011. The scope of interference in a revision is very limited. In a revision, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated to reach a different finding unless it is the case that the findings recorded by the lower courts are perverse or based on mis-appreciation of evidence. Rather the revisional court has to look for an illegality to interfere with the concurrent findings of acquittal. 10. Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not lay down that an original document can be compared with a photostat copy of a writing. While making a photostat copy of a document, the machine may introduce some abberations. The science of identification of handwriting is otherwise not a perfect science and when the report is based on comparison made between an original and a photostat copy, no reliance whatsoever can be placed. 11. The complainant has also made a statement to the effect that the writing of the letter is in the hand of Manoj Kumar. He could not make it clear on the record as to how he is familiar with the writing of Manoj Kumar. Therefore, learned courts below have rightly rejected that piece of evidence also. 12. The courts below have found that the only grandson of the complainant Amar Nath was born on 11.05.2000. The occurrence took place on 16.07.2002. At that time the only grandson of the complainant was, therefore, about two years old and he must not have been a student of any school. Rather, it is also not a case of the complainant that his grandson is studying in Malwa Public School Gidderbaha. Therefore the threat of eliminating the grandson of the complainant, who was studying in Malwa Public School Gidderbaha, cannot be said to make any sense. 13. Even if it is taken that grandson of the complainant was not born on 11.05.2000 and was born earlier, no child by the name of Khushal Grover, a son of Vikas Grover and a grandson of Amar Nath Grover, complainant, was stated to be there on the rolls of Malwa Public School Gidderbaha by Anoop Singh, clerk of the school, examined as DW-2. 14. 14. Learned trial court has noticed various other improvements in the statement of the complainant and contradictions between his statement and the statement of Ashok Kumar Dabra and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no irregularity, much less illegality in the judgments of the courts below and finding no merit in the revision petition, dismiss the same. ---------0.B.S.0------------