Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2261 (HP)

Mohinder Singh v. Usha Chauhan

2018-12-19

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioner is the complainant, who aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, has filed the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner who was also Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Grawag, visited the Tehsil Office at Kotkhai on 18.11.2011 and at about 4.00 p.m., accused-respondent No.1 came outside the Office and started staring at the petitioner. Upon this, the petitioner telephonically called SHO, Police Station, Kotkhai, who came to the Office of Tehsildar. As soon as, the petitioner along with SHO came out from the Office of Tehsildar to go to the police station, then respondent No.1 wrongfully restrained the petitioner to proceed further which constrained the petitioner to return to the Office of Tehsildar, however, respondent No.1 followed him and came to the Office of Tehsildar and assaulted the petitioner by catching hold of his neck and started pulling him outside the Office of Tehsildar. Respondent No.1 also threatened him to do away with his life. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application Ex.PW1/A to the SHO, Kotkhai regarding this incident on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW6/A was registered and endorsement Ex. PW6/B was also made on the application. During investigation, the I.O. prepared site plan Ex.PW6/C and also recorded statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against respondent No.1. 3. After filing of the challan, a prima facie case was found against respondent No.1 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 352 and 506-II IPC and accordingly, respondent No.1 was summoned. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and after closure of the evidence, statement of respondent No.1 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she denied the prosecution case and stated that she was in Tehsil Office at the relevant date and time, but nothing sort as contained in the complaint had happened. She also stated that due to political rivalry, the petitioner had lodged the FIR. 5. It is vehemently contended by Shri Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse. She also stated that due to political rivalry, the petitioner had lodged the FIR. 5. It is vehemently contended by Shri Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse. However, on the other hand, Shri V.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2, would argue that since both the learned Courts below have concurrently found no merit in the case of the petitioner, therefore, this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction should not interfere with such findings, especially, when there is no perversity in the same. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 7. This Court has very limited revisionary jurisdiction as held by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2011, titled as Rajinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 13.09.2017, wherein the scope of criminal revision has been delineated in the following manner:- "12. In Amur Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose and another , (1973) AIR SC 799, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 13. In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu , (1979) AIR SC 663, the Hon''ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram , (1973) AIR SC 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system". 14. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad , (1986) AIR SC 1436, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 15. 14. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad , (1986) AIR SC 1436, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 15. In Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh , (1986) AIR SC 1721, the legal position regarding scope of revisional jurisdiction was summed up by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the following terms: "It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the accused. Even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope." 16. In Ramu @ Ram Kumar vs. Jagannath , (1994) AIR SC 26, Hon''ble Supreme court cautioned the revisional Courts not to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant. 17. In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu , (1993) AIR SC 1126 = II (1992) CCR 458 (SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. 18. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath , (1994) AIR SC 26 the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint." 19. 18. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath , (1994) AIR SC 26 the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint." 19. In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M. P. and another , (1997) AIR SC 2485 = II (1997) CCR 109 (SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , (1962) AIR SC 1788 ; Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh , (1968) AIR SC 707; P. N. G. Raju vs. B. P. Appadu , (1975) AIR SC 1854 and Ayodhya vs. Ram Sumer Singh , (1981) AIR SC 1415 and held that revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice". 20. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , (1999) 2 SCC 452 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "In Its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice." 21. In State of A. P. vs. Rajagopala Rao , (2000) 10 SCC 338 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment." 8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that there is no dispute that both the parties at the given date and time were present in the Office of Tehsildar, Kotkhai. As per the petitioner, he was wrongfully restrained by respondent No.1 and while appearing as PW-1, he stated that while he along with Rakesh, Umesh, Hari Chand and SHO were leaving the Office of Tehsildar, then respondent No.1 came there and stood in front of him constraining him to go back to the Office of the Tehsildar. 9. Pw-2 Umesh stated that when he along with Rakesh, petitioner Mohinder Singh, SHO and Tehsildar came out from the Office of the Tehsildar and were climbing stairs, then respondent No.1 stopped them and thereafter the petitioner came running to the Office of the Tehsildar. 10. Sh. Krishan Chand, Tehsildar, was though examined as PW-3, but he nowhere stated that respondent No.1 had wrongfully obstructed the path of the petitioner, rather, admitted in his cross examination that the accused had not obstructed the path of the petitioner. 11. Pw-5 Rakesh stated that while they were going through the Office of Tehsildar, respondent No.1 obstructed the path of the petitioner. 12. Pw-6 Rattan Chand, Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer, who stated that when they all came out from the Office of the Tehsildar and reached in the verandah, then respondent No.1 obstructed the path of the petitioner. 13. However, it would be noticed that contrary and conflicting claims with regard to the exact position where the petitioner was obstructed have been put-forth by the witnesses examined by the petitioner which otherwise do not tally with the site plan Ex.PW6/C prepared by PW-6. As per I.O., it was in the verandah that respondent No.1 obstructed the petitioner, but as per the site plan Ex.PW6/C, respondent No.1 is alleged to have obstructed the petitioner in the ground mark-E. In case, the testimony of PW-3, the then Tehsildar Krishan Chand is now perused, he has very specifically and categorically stated that the petitioner was not obstructed by respondent No.1. 14. 14. Apart from the above, it would be noticed that the specific allegation of the petitioner against respondent No.1 was that he was threatened to do away with his life. However, as per testimony of Tehsildar Krishan Chand (PW-3), respondent No.1 had only told the petitioner that one day she will go to jail, but will teach him a lesson. PW-2 Umesh, on the other hand, stated that respondent No.1 told the complainant that she will go to jail, but she will go to jail after killing the petitioner. PW-5 Rakesh, on the other hand, stated that respondent No.1 had threatened the petitioner to do away with his life. 15. Thus, it is noticed that even though the testimony of PW-5 stands corroborated by the testimony of PW-6, but then the statement of PW-3 is contrary to the statements of all other witnesses. The contradictions assume importance because it has specifically come on record that there is enmity between the parties for which cases and counter-cases have been filed by them against each other. 16. As regards attraction of offence punishable under Section 352 IPC, no evidence was led with regard to use of criminal force and, therefore, obviously, respondent No.1 could not have been convicted for the said offence. The statements of the witnesses as also the oral and documentary evidence that has come on record has been meticulously considered by both the learned Courts below and, therefore, the findings recorded by them cannot be said or held to be perverse. 17. Accordingly, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.