Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sadhu Singh v. Gurtej Singh & Ors - CRR-1138-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1943 (23 March 2006)

Criminal Revision No. 1138 of 2003 1


Criminal Revision No.1138 of 2003

Date of decision : 9-1-2006

Sadhu Singh Vs. Gurtej Singh and others

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Present: Ms. Upasana Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Virender Singh, J.

Gurtej, Satwant Singh, Inderjit Singh and Amarjit Kaur respondents have earned acquittal vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 22-11-2002. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 452/325/323/34 IPC. Sadhu Singh petitioner/complainant is aggrieved by the said judgment.

Admittedly the State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. A certificate to this effect issued by the office of the Advocate General is there on the file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to point out certain infirmities in the impugned judgment. She has also taken me through the relevant portion of the judgment, where medical evidence is discussed.

Learned counsel then contends that may be there is delay in lodging the FIR, but the same was explained by the complainant and it does not dent the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, even if some contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have crept in, the same are not so material as to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused.

Criminal Revision No. 1138 of 2003 2

I do not agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The scope of revision in a case of acquittal is 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 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), no case for interference is made out. Consequently the present revision is dismissed.

[Virender Singh]


January 9, 2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.