Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 573 (HP)

Tej Ram v. State of H. P.

2016-04-27

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, dated 10.7.2008 in Cr. Appeal No. 41 of 2006, vide which judgment, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and conviction dated 25.11.2006 ordered by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog in Police Chalan No. 75-II of 2005, dated 25.11.2006. 2. The case of the prosecution was that Kahan Chand, resident of village Dharmour was keeping his cattle in his cow shed and on 18.6.2005 he found that his buffalo was missing from there. Though he tried to trace the buffalo in the locality, however, he was not able to trace the same. In these circumstances, he went to Police Station, Karsog and submitted a written complaint to the SHO to the effect that his buffalo was missing from his cow shed. Head constable Parma Ram was deputed by the SHO to verify the facts and he went to village Dharmour and after verification recorded the statement of complainant, Kahan Chand, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per his statement, complainant, Kahan Chand, suspected the accused to have stolen his buffalo in view of the fact that accused Tej Ram had visited village Dharmour in connection with the purchase of cattle. On the basis of said statement of Kahan Chand, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Karsog. The case was investigated by HC Parma Ram and during investigation the accused made a disclosure statement that he had tethered the buffalo in the courtyard of Sant Ram at village Dhandhal. The accused took the police party to the house of Sant Ram at village Dhandhal. The buffalo was recovered which was tethered with a mango tree. After completion of the investigation, SHO Police Station, Karsog prepared the chargesheet against the accused under Section 380 IPC and the same was put up in the Court of learned SDJM, Karsog who framed charge under Section 380 IPC against the accused. The learned trial Court convicted the accused to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. 3. The judgment of the learned trial Court was challenged by way of an appeal by the accused. However, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court by upholding the conviction of the accused. 4. The learned trial Court convicted the accused to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. 3. The judgment of the learned trial Court was challenged by way of an appeal by the accused. However, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court by upholding the conviction of the accused. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed the present revision against the judgments passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Mandi, Camp at Karsog as well as the judgment passed by learned SDJM, Karsog. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. In defence, the accused has examined one witness. 6. Complainant, Kahan Chand, has appeared as PW1. He has deposed that he had lodged written complaint Ext.PW1/A to the police with regard to the fact of his buffalo missing from his cow shed. He has further stated that he suspected the accused to have stolen his buffalo, as the accused was dealing in the trade of cattle. He has also mentioned that during the investigation the accused had made a disclosure statement and this led to the recovery of the buffalo at the instance of the accused, vide recovery Ext.PW1/C. He has maintained in his cross-examination that the buffalo recovered at the instance of the accused was his buffalo which was stolen from his cow shed. 7. PW2 Sant Ram has deposed that in the month of ‘ASHAHR PANCH PRAVISTA’ at around 6:45 a.m the accused who is a trader of cattle came to his courtyard and stated that he has brought a buffalo from Nalag and he tethered the same in his courtyard as he was going to bring a cow. He came back at around 3:00 p.m. and said that the deal of cow has not matured. Then he left by saying that buffalo be feeded grass. Thereafter, police came in the night at around 2-2:30 p.m. At that time he was not in his house and his daughter told him that police had taken away the buffalo with them and the accused was also with police. 8. PW3 Lalit Kumar has deposed that on 17.6.2005 accused met him near Churag with a buffalo and on the asking of the accused he transported the buffalo in his vehicle upto Pangna from Churag. 8. PW3 Lalit Kumar has deposed that on 17.6.2005 accused met him near Churag with a buffalo and on the asking of the accused he transported the buffalo in his vehicle upto Pangna from Churag. Het Ram PW4 has deposed that during investigation of the case, the accused had made a disclosure statement i.e. Ext.PW4/A to the effect that he had tethered the buffalo with a mango tree in the courtyard of Sant Ram at village Dhandal. He has further mentioned that the accused took them to the house of Sant Ram and the buffalo was recovered from there. He has maintained in his cross-examination that the buffalo was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused. PW9 HC Parma Ram investigated the case and he has deposed that on 18.6.2005 village Dharmour was visited by him to verify the facts. The statement of Kahan Chand was recorded by him which is Ext.PW1/B and the said statement was sent by him to the Police Station in order to register the case. He has further stated that he arrested the accused thereafter and in the course of investigation the accused made a disclosure statement that he had brought the buffalo from the house of Kahan Chand and had taken the same upto Churag and from Churag he had brought the buffalo in a jeep upto Pangana, from where he again transported the buffalo in a Mahindra Pickup upto the house of Sant Ram where he tethered the buffalo with a tree. He has also mentioned that the accused took them to the house of Sant Ram at village Dhandhal and the recovery of the buffalo was effected from there. The defence of the accused was that he had purchased the buffalo from Mast Ram. Mast Ram has deposed as DW1. In his statement he has mentioned that the accused carries the business of buying and selling of cattle. On 17.6.2005 the accused had come to his house at Samlot and he had sold the buffalo to the accused for an amount of Rs. 3200/- He came alongwith the buffalo upto village Rehuni. Before this also the accused was in trading of cattle. The accused has not stolen any buffalo as he had sold the buffalo to the accused. In his cross-examination he has stated that whereas the accused is a trader, he is an agent. 3200/- He came alongwith the buffalo upto village Rehuni. Before this also the accused was in trading of cattle. The accused has not stolen any buffalo as he had sold the buffalo to the accused. In his cross-examination he has stated that whereas the accused is a trader, he is an agent. Though he has denied that he used to receive commission from the accused but he has admitted that both he and accused use to work jointly. Therefore, one thing is clear from the statement of DW1 that he was known to the accused and the possibility of his deposing falsely to protect the accused cannot be ruled out. 9. Ext. PW4/A is the disclosure statement made by the accused on the basis of which the recovery of the buffalo was effected by the police. 10. I have gone through the records of the case and have also perused the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. 11. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Palsra that the accused has been falsely implicated in the matter and that he was not guilty of stealing the buffalo. He has reiterated that the buffalo in issue was in fact purchased by him from Mast Ram and the same was not stolen. 12. I am afraid that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any substance because in my view, the prosecution in the present case has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of selling the buffalo of the complainant. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the material on record and on the basis of the said appreciation they have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence alleged against him. I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. 13. There is no infirmity with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. It cannot be said that any material particular has been overlooked either by the learned trial Court or by the learned Appellate Court. There is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned courts below. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. There is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned courts below. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation 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. (See Logindra Vs. Polailal, AIR 1951 SC 316 ) 14. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhury & others, 1992 (4) SCC 305 that 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. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 665, has again held that Revisional Court can interfere with the findings of lower court where the Courts below have overlooked material evidence. 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. As already held above, there is no perversity in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. These judgments have been passed by appreciating all the material on record and the judgments are neither cryptic nor it can be said that the conclusion arrived at are not borne out form the material placed on record by the prosecution. Thus, the revision sans merit and the same is dismissed.