Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 338 (HP)

Shakuntla Devi v. Lalman

2018-03-14

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Cr. MP (M) No. 1276 of 2017, Cr. MP No. 1215 of 2017 and Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2009 1. Petitioner herein claims herself to be the victim of occurrence having taken place long back on 10.11.2001 around 1:30 P.M. at village Dhangu, Police Station Balh, Tehsil Sadar (now Tehsil Balh), District Mandi wherein she allegedly was assaulted by respondents No. 1 and 2, the accused persons at a time when was irrigating the field belonging to them along with her son Hitesh Kumar. Both accused accompanied by their co-accused Hem Raj, Jagdish Kumar and Puran Chand (since dead) all of a sudden appeared on the spot and started ploughing the said field with a tractor brought with them. While accused- respondent Lalman caught hold the complainant, his wife accused Radha Devi assaulted her with sickle and thereby she received injuries on her person. It was further alleged that all the accused gathered in the form of an unlawful assembly and conspired with each other to tress pass into the land of the complainant party and also administer beatings to them. The task they planned by conspiring with each other they completed by entering upon the field of complainant party and administered beating to the complainant and her son Hitesh Kumar. 2. The occurrence was reported to the police of Police Station, Balh, District Mandi where a case came to be registered against all the accused under Section 147, 447, 323 read with Section 149 IPC vide FIR No. 376 of 2001. The police on conducting investigation and collecting the evidence against the accused-petitioner prepared the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and presented the same in the Court with a prayer to punish the accused persons. The report so filed came to be registered as Police Challan No. 53-I/2002 (46-II/2002) and tried by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Mandi, District Mandi. Learned trial Magistrate after holding full trial has convicted all the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 447 read with Sections 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay Rs. Learned trial Magistrate after holding full trial has convicted all the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 447 read with Sections 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay Rs. 500/- as fine under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay Rs. 200/- as fine under Section 447 read with Section 149 IPC and also to undergo three months simple imprisonment as well as to pay Rs. 500/- as fine under Section 147 IPC. 3. All the accused have assailed the findings of conviction recorded against each of them by learned trial Court in an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on hearing the parties and appreciation of evidence has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the accused, as such, were acquitted of the charge framed against each of them vide judgment under challenge in these proceedings before this Court. 4. It is worth mentioning that the State has not opted for filing an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned lower Appellate Court. It is the complainant claim herself to be the victim of the occurrence has preferred the revision petition challenging therein the judgment passed by learned lower Appellate Court on several grounds, however, mainly that the findings of the acquittal of the accused recorded by learned lower Appellate Court are not based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. As per her further grouse the well reasoned judgment passed by learned trial Court has erroneously been set aside. 5. The revision petition when heard for some time, it transpired that the same is not maintainable. Therefore, on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned enabling thereby the learned Counsel representing her to satisfy this Court as to how a revision petition is maintainable against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned lower Appellate Court. It is pursuant to the order so passed in this petition the applications registered as Cr. Therefore, on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned enabling thereby the learned Counsel representing her to satisfy this Court as to how a revision petition is maintainable against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned lower Appellate Court. It is pursuant to the order so passed in this petition the applications registered as Cr. MP No. 1215 of 2017 with a prayer to order the conversion of the revision petition into an appeal and Cr. MP No 1276 of 2017 to grant leave to appeal came to be filed. 6. Both applications have been resisted and contested on behalf of the respondents-accused on the grounds, inter-alia, that at this belated stage neither the revision petition can be ordered to be converted into an appeal nor leave to appeal granted. 7. On hearing learned Counsel representing the parties and learned Additional Advocate General, it would not be improper to conclude that in normal circumstances there is nothing illegal in converting a revision petition into an appeal. The present, however, is a case where the application with a prayer to convert the revision petition into an appeal came to be filed after nine years of the institution of the revision petition in this Court. On the other hand against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned lower Appellate Court the remedy available was to file appeal in this Court and not revision petition. As noted at the outset the conversion of a revision petition into an appeal is legally permissible, however, in appropriate cases and that too at the very threshold and not at a belated stage because allowing the revision petition to be converted into an appeal at this stage would amount to take away a right accrued in favour of the accused on expiry of the period prescribed for filing the same. Above all allowing such conversion at this belated stage would amount further harassment of the respondents-accused who have been facing the present case since its registration with the police in the year 2001 i.e. for the last 18 years. The offence allegedly committed by the accused-respondents is also not very serious and heinous in nature as the only allegations against them are that they entered upon the field of the complainant party and caused hurt to the complainant and her son Hitesh Kumar. The offence allegedly committed by the accused-respondents is also not very serious and heinous in nature as the only allegations against them are that they entered upon the field of the complainant party and caused hurt to the complainant and her son Hitesh Kumar. The offence they allegedly committed is thus punishable under Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code because admittedly the so called injuries allegedly inflicted by the accused party on the person of the complainant were simple in nature. In a case punishable under Section 447 IPC the maximum sentence of imprisonment may extend up to three months with fine which may extended to Rs. 500/-. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC the sentence of imprisonment may extend to one month or with fine which may extended to Rs. 1000/- or with both. A person held guilty under Section 147 IPC may also undergo the sentence of imprisonment for a maximum period of two years or with fine or with both. 8. The accused persons who have been facing the present case for the last 18 years in the considered opinion of this Court had suffered a lot. Otherwise also, the record reveals that there is no iota of evidence suggesting that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and conspired with each other to enter upon the field of the complainant party and also administered beatings to them. There is no grain of truth in the prosecution story that the accused assembled in the form of an unlawful assembly, had used force against the complainant party and were violent also so that the commission of an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC could have been said to be committed by them. No doubt, learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused, however, learned lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence while setting aside the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court has acquitted them of the charge framed against each of them. 9. Therefore, not only the wrong remedy has been chosen by the petitioner-complainant but on merits also no case for interference is made out. The present is also not a case where at this belated stage, the prayer for conversion of the revision petition into an appeal and leave to appeal should be granted. 10. Being so, the applications are dismissed. Therefore, not only the wrong remedy has been chosen by the petitioner-complainant but on merits also no case for interference is made out. The present is also not a case where at this belated stage, the prayer for conversion of the revision petition into an appeal and leave to appeal should be granted. 10. Being so, the applications are dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition also stand dismissed.