Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1514 (HP)

Sunita Devi v. Deep Chand

2016-07-28

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2008 dated 14.05.2009, vide which, learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, in Private Complaint No. 69-I of 2004/185-II of 2006 dated 01.09.2006. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that complainant Smt. Sunita Devi filed a complaint under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 452, 506 and 341 I.P.C. on the ground that on 19.02.2004 at about 7.00 P.M. accused formed a group in order to harass the complainant and her family members and her brother Kishan Chand, who was returning home at the relevant time after discharging his duties, was attacked near his home by accused Deep Chand and Suresh Kumar. As per the complainant, Maya Devi, Meera Devi and she went to the spot on hearing the noise and rescued their brother. Deep Chand had bitten the finger of Kishan Chand and Maya Devi, as a result of which they suffered injuries. Deep Chand also inflicted a blow on the face of the complainant as a result of which she lost her tooth. According to the complainant, when she went to her house, all the accused persons entered the house and started abusing the complainant and her family members and threatened to kill them. They pelted stones on their house causing damages to the doors, windows and walls. Deep Chand also caught her from her hair and dragged her causing injuries to her. This incident was witnessed by Balbir Singh and Mand Chand, who rescued the complainant from the accused persons. The factum of the incident was telephonically intimated by the complainant to the police. The matter was also reported to the police by the brother of the complainant but no action was taken by the police. She was also medically examined. As the Doctor did not issue correct certificate, a complaint in this regard was filed before the C.M.O., after which, fresh medical certificate was issued. As the police was not taking any action on the complaint filed by the brother of the complainant, hence she filed the private complaint. She was also medically examined. As the Doctor did not issue correct certificate, a complaint in this regard was filed before the C.M.O., after which, fresh medical certificate was issued. As the police was not taking any action on the complaint filed by the brother of the complainant, hence she filed the private complaint. After the completion of preliminary evidence, as per learned trial Court sufficient reasons existed to summon the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 147, 323, 324, 341, 427, 506 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 3. Pre-charge evidence was led by the complainant and subsequently, charges were framed against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 323, 427, 506, 147 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 4. On the basis of the material produced on record by the complainant, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence led by the complainant was not such which could be said to be wholly reliable and it further held that it was extremely doubtful that the incident took place in the manner as was suggested by the complainant. Learned trial Court further held that the complainant had failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Hence, all of them were acquitted from the charges framed against them. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by learned trial Court, the complainant filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2009. 6. The findings so returned by both the learned Courts below have been assailed by way of the present revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 8. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court demonstrates that on the basis of the appreciation of evidence on record by the complainant, it held that the whole of the complainant’s case regarding causing injury by tooth bite, forming an unlawful assembly and committing mischief by damaging the property of the complainant could not be relied upon because the version of the incident which has been presented by the complainant in the Court is an exaggerated one and is not in consonance with the first version given by the complainant party. Learned trial Court held that initially as per the case set up by the complainant, allegations were against two persons only and there were no allegations against rest of the accused. It was not stated that any tooth bite was given or that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and had attacked the complainant party inside the house. Learned trial Court further held that the medical evidence also did not support the case of the prosecution as Dr. Chaman Kant who had conducted the dental examination had not supported the case of the complainant and had categorically stated that there was no fracture of the crown or root nor there was any injury on the upper as well as lower/inner side of the mouth. On these basis, learned trial Court held that this falsified the version of the complainant that her tooth was broken due to the fist blow. It further held that Dr. Anil Kaushal who had conducted medical examination of Kishan Chand had found a lacerated wound on the right index finger, which was superficial in nature and no wound was found on the middle finger as was the case putforth by the complainant. After discussing the rest of the testimony of the said Doctor, learned trial Court concluded that the statement of the said Doctor also did not support the case of the complainant. Accordingly, learned trial Court held that the incident had been exaggerated by the complainant party and the complaint was highly rhetorical and did not contain the first version and further, testimony of CW-2 Salochna Devi in this regard also did not substantiate the case of the complainant. It further held that Pradhan, Gram Panchayat had no legal sanctity as Gram Panchayat was not authorized to visit the spot and to issue certificate regarding the spot position under H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, unless a case is pending before it. It was not so in the present matter. Learned trial Court also held that no independent witness was examined by the complainant to substantiate her case, though it is an admitted fact that village was having many houses. Accordingly, on these basis, learned trial Court held that the complainant had not been able to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and in these circumstances, it acquitted the accused for the charges framed against them. 9. Accordingly, on these basis, learned trial Court held that the complainant had not been able to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and in these circumstances, it acquitted the accused for the charges framed against them. 9. Learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 14.05.2009 upheld the said judgment of acquittal. 10. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court demonstrates that after appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment passed by learned trial Court, it concluded that there was no material on record to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and this conclusion has been duly supported by reasonings which found mention in Paras 41 to 46 of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court. 11. In my considered view, it cannot be said that the judgments of both the learned Courts below are either perverse or the findings which have been returned by both the learned Courts below are not borne out from the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate nor could he pin point as to what was the perversity with the judgment’s passed by both the learned Courts below and what was that material evidence or fact which had been misread or mis-appreciated by both the learned Courts below. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the statement of the complainant witnesses leaves no room of doubt that the case of the complainant stood proved and it nailed the guilt of the accused is without any material. In my considered view, both the learned Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the case has been exaggerated by the complainant and the case as had been putforth by the complainant do not inspire confidence especially in view of the fact that the evidence produced on record by the complainant to substantiate her case does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused only were guilty of the offences alleged against them. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any material particularly which has been over-looked by the learned Courts below. 13. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon reappreciation of evidence. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any material particularly which has been over-looked by the learned Courts below. 13. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon reappreciation of evidence. The High Court in revision cannot in absence of error on a point of law, re-appreciate evidence and reverse a finding of law. The object of the revisional jurisdiction was to confer power 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, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, (2004) 7 SCC 665 , has held that Revisional Court can interfere with the findings of lower court where the Courts below have overlooked material evidence. 15. Even otherwise, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788, that this Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot set aside the acquittal even at the instance of private complaint except in exceptional cases. 16. Thus it can be safely inferred that this Court has to exercise its revisional powers sparingly. Though, this Court is not required to act as a Court of appeal, however, at the same time it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. However, I do not find any manifest illegality with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below in the present case. 17. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that there is neither any infirmity nor any perversity with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below and there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.