High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors - CRLR-82-2003  RD-P&H 166 (28 September 2005)
Criminal Revn. No. 82 of 2003
Date of decision : 06.01.06
State of Haryana and others
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh Present : Mr.Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner Virender Singh,J.
Rajesh son of Partap Singh and Rajiv alias Kala alias Langra son of Bhagwan Dass, both residents of village Ismaila, District Rohtak have been acquitted vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 26.7.2002. They were charged under sections 302, 201, 392, 506 read with section 34 IPC and 25 of Arms Act.
Conceded position is that the State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. The instant revision petition is filed by one Ranjit Singh who is real brother of the deceased. Otherwise, the complainant-FIR lodger is one Ajit Singh son of Kartar Singh.
It may be mentioned that one of the zimini orders (short order) dated 19.7.2004 indicates that the State counsel had also put appearance. It appears that the presence of State counsel is shown inadvertently for the reason that no notice has been issued to the respondents till date. The present revision thus, is at its preliminary stage for the purpose of admission only. However, at one stage a clarification was sought from the concerned official as the present revision was entertained without obtaining a certificate from the Advocate General, Haryana. The concerned official has made his position clear in his detailed reply.
I have heard Mr. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.
Mr. Tiwari has made an attempt to point out certain discrepancies in the prosecution case with regard to the main occurrence of the recoveries allegedly effected at the instance of the respondents- accused. On the basis of the said discrepancies-weaknesses, Mr. Tiwari submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
I am not in agreement with the submissions made by Mr.
Tiwari. The learned trial court has discussed the entire prosecution evidence in detail including all the recoveries allegedly effected from the respondents-accused and thereafter returned a categoric finding that the prosecution has not been able to lead cogent and trust-worthy evidence to prove the charge against the respondents-accused beyond all shadow of doubt and resultantly extended the benefit of doubt to both the respondents (2 and 3). I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment either on facts or on law which would call for the intervention while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
The scope of revision against the acquittal has been well discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias R.P.Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 61, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different than the one arrived at by the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. It is further observed by their Lordships that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a re-trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused, and that itself must caution the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand and following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra), the present revision petition has no life in it. Resultantly, it is dismissed in limine itself.
( Virender Singh )
January 06 , 2005 Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.