Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2882 (ALL)

RAGHVENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-08-22

VIPIN SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J. Heard Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2003 passed by Civil Judge, (S.D.) Kannauj acquitting the accused in case no. 746 of 2002; State v. Pal Singh and others. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the court below has wrongly appreciated the evidence and has totally ignored the eye-witness account as well as injury and the gravity of the offense while acquitting the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 5. I have perused the injure reports, perusal of which shows that there were only two injuries on the victim, which are as follows:- ^^1- dVk gqvk ?kko 5 x 1lseh0 [kky rd xgjk ck;s gkFk ds uhps okyh dykbZ ls 8 lseh0 mijA 2- nkfguh dykbZ ij nnZ dh f'kdk;r fdUrq ml ij eSus dksbZ lwtu ;k pksV dk fu'kku ugha ik;kA^^ It may also be appreciated at the very outset that the incident is of the year 1991 being 25.2.1991. The court below has recorded a categorical finding with regard to the incident that the incident took place on 25.2.1991 at 6 pm in the evening and the FIR has been lodged in the morning at about 9.30 am on 26.2.1991 whereas the distance of place of occurrence from the police station is only about 13 km and there is no explanation with regard to the delay in the lodging of the FIR. The court below has also recorded the discrepancy and the contradiction in the statement of PW1 and PW2. The court below has also recorded the discrepancy and the contradiction in the statement of PW1 and PW2. A categorical finding has been recorded in this regard, which is as under: ^^oknh us ?kVuk LFky vius ?kj ds njokts ij gksus dk mYys[k fd;k gS tcfd lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 us vius l'kiFk dFku esa ?kVuk LFky egsUnz ds njokts ij gksus dk dFku fd;k gSA uD'kk utjh ds vuqlkj oknh ds edku ls egsUnz ds edku dh nwjh cgqr vf/kd gSA ?kVuk LFky ds laca/k esa lk{kh ih0MCyq&2 us Hkh ?kVuk LFky vius njokts ds lkeus gksus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA bl izdkj lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 o ih0MCyw&2 ds l'kiFk dFku esa fojks/kkHkkl ik;k tkrk gSA^^ Keeping in view the aforesaid discrepancy, the court below has recorded a finding to the following effect:- ^^;fn izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ es vafdr ?kVuk LFky rFkk lk{khx.k }kjk crk, x;s ?kVuk LFky esa fdlh izdkj dks dksbZ fojks/kkHkkl ik;k tkrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gS rFkk ;g vfHk;kstu dFkkud dks lansgkLin cukrk gSA vr% izfrj{kk i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ esa Hkh cy ik;k tkrk gSA^^ Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid, the court below has concluded that there contradictions in the statements and has noted as under :- ^^lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 o 2 dk dFku gS fd vfHk;qDr us ihNs ls Qjlk ekjk Fkk tcfd lk{kh ih0MCyw&3 us vius 'kliFk dFku dh izfr ijh{kk esa LohdkjksfDr dh gS fd lkeus ls dksbZ gfFk;kj pykus ij ;g pksaVs vk ldrh gSa D;ksafd pksVsa ,slh fLFkfr esa gSA bl izdkj lk{kh ih0MCyw&3 ds dFkukuqlkj pksVsa lkeus ls igqpkbZ xbZ gSa] tcfd lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 o 2 ds dFkukuqlkj pksVas ihNs ls Qjlk ekjdj igqpkbZ xbZ gSaA vr% lk{khx.k ds l'kiFk dFku esa pksVsa igqpkus ds laca/k esa fojks/kkHkkl ik;k tkrk gSA^^ Even with regard to the injury, the court below has recorded a categorical finding as under :- ^^tgak rd pksVksa dh vof/k ds rF; dk laca/k gS rks lk{kh ih0MCyw&3 Mk0 ,l0ch0 f}osnh us vius l'kiFk dFku esa dgk gS fd eqvkbus ds le; pksV dk jax yky Fkk rFkk pksV 6 ls 12 ?kaVs iqjkuh Fkh tcfd fpfdRlh; ihj{k.k ds voyksdu ls Kku gksrk gS fd et:oh dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k fnuakd 26&2&91 dks le; djhc ,d cts nksigj fd;k x;k FkkA tcfd ?kVuk fnuakd 25&9&91 dks lak; 6 cts dh gS bl izdkj yxHkx 19 ?kaVs dh pksV iqjkuh gSA^^ In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond Court's power and jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Kerala Vs. Putthumana ILLath Jathavedan Namboodiri," AIR 1999 SC 981 , has held that the High Court while hearing revisions does not work as an Appellate court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done. Hon'ble the Apex Court in "State Of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others", AIR 1993 SC 1126 , has held that generally speaking, concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two courts below are not to be interfered with by the High Court in absence of any special circumstances or if same are not perverse in any manner. It should be kept in mind that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and specially to protect woman and children and also old and infirm parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 14(3), re-enforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. Hon'ble the Apex Court in "Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh", AIR 2002 SC 2229 , has held that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error or point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In "Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others" AIR 2002 SC 107 , it has been further held that while exercising the revisional power the High court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. It may further be appreciated that the legal position as to the powers of the High Court in revision in the matter of interference with the order of acquittal is no longer res integra, as the law in this regard is very well settled. It may further be appreciated that the legal position as to the powers of the High Court in revision in the matter of interference with the order of acquittal is no longer res integra, as the law in this regard is very well settled. Suffice it to refer in this regard a decision of this Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr., AIR 1962 SC 1788 wherein it was held, thus : "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal by the jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exception the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not covert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised..... Reference may also be had to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and others, JT 1998 (7) SC 98, wherein it has been held as under:- "Coming to the ambit of power of High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its reversional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue have been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 403 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its reversional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial." Moreover, learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the finding as recorded by the court below in the order impugned. Thus, in view of the aforesaid and also in view of long lapse of time, the instant revision is dismissed.