Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 258 (HP)

Jiwan Lal v. Kuldeep

2019-03-13

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1784 of 2018. Respondent No.1 stands served. Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. By medium of this application, the applicant/petitioner has sought condonation of 8 days' delay that has crept up in filing of the revision. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/petitioner, the aforesaid delay in filing of the revision petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No.84 of 2019. Revision be registered. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent No.1 and has, therefore, filed this revision petition. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.06.2012, complainant Jiwan Lal came to Police Chowki, City Mandi and produced a X-ray film alleging that on 13.06.2012 at around 8.30 p.m., when he was going to the house of his sister Dolma Devi near Suhra Muhalla, respondent No.1 Kuldeep, who was standing near the 'Thupka Momos Hawker' not only obstructed his way, but also hurled abuses at the complainant. Not only this, respondent No.1 caught hold of collar of shirt of the complainant and gave him beatings. When the complainant tried to free himself from the clutches of respondent No.1, the latter picked up a 'taintha' (steel spoon) from the peddle of 'Thupka Momos' and hit it on the right wrist of the complainant, as a result whereof, he sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 thereafter left the spot. The complainant also left for his house with the thinking that the injuries were minor in nature and, therefore, did not lodge the report to the police. However, on the intervening night, he felt pain in his arm. On the next day, he visited Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where X-ray of his arm was carried out and it was revealed therein that the arm had sustained fracture. It is then that the complainant made a complaint vide rapat Ext. PW1/A on the basis of which an FIR Ex.PW10/A was registered. 5. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put in the Court. 6. It is then that the complainant made a complaint vide rapat Ext. PW1/A on the basis of which an FIR Ex.PW10/A was registered. 5. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put in the Court. 6. Respondent No.1 was summoned and on putting in his appearance before the Court, copies of challan along with relevant documents were supplied to him in compliance to Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was charged for the commission of the offence under Sections 341, 325 and 504 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and closed its evidence. Thereafter, statement of respondent No.1 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution case in toto and pleaded his innocence. However, no evidence in defence was led by him. 8. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate vide its judgment dated 30.06.2016 acquitted respondent No.1 for the commission of the aforesaid offence. 9. The acquittal of respondent No.1 was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.08.2018. 10. Aggrieved by the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below, the complainant has filed this revision petition contending that the findings rendered by the learned Courts below are perverse. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 12. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and this Court would definitely interfere in case it comes to the conclusion that there is a failure of justice and misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure or where the sentence awarded is not correct. After all, it is the salutary duty of this Court to prevent the abuse of justice or miscarriage of justice or/and correct irregularities, incorrectness committed by the inferior Criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. 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. 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. 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. 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, (1991) 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, 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. In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another, (1997) AIR SC 2485, 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. 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." 13. At the outset, it would be noticed that there is no foundation whatsoever laid down by the petitioner for proving and establishing the case set up by him. After-all, why would anyone, who is standing near 'Thupka' shop for no rhyme or reason, obstructs anyone's way or hurls abuses and eventually get down beating that person. For such behaviour, he should be heavily drunk or under the influence of any narcotic or drug or should surely be suffering from mental ailment or imbalance, as such, this kind of behaviour is not expected from any ordinary or a normal human being. 14. However, the petitioner has not proved that respondent No.1 was suffering from any of the aforesaid disabilities. 14. However, the petitioner has not proved that respondent No.1 was suffering from any of the aforesaid disabilities. Even otherwise, petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. 15. Lastly and more importantly, the other prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PW-2 Amar Chand, PW-3 Retu Ram, PW-4 Sonu Kumar and PW-5 Narsi Kumar, have not corroborated or supported the statement of the petitioner on material particulars. Even though, these persons were stated to be eye witnesses, however, they resiled from their previous statements which definitely makes the case of the prosecution doubtful and unworthy of any credence. 16. Both the learned Courts below have given clear, cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting respondent No.1 and, therefore, in absence of any perversity in such findings, this Court in its limited revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings rendered by the learned Courts below. 17. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.