Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI SINGH versus AJIT SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Singh v. Ajit Singh & Ors - CRR-1516-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1948 (23 March 2006)

Criminal Revision No. 1516 of 2004 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No. 1516 of 2004

Date of Decision : 9-1-2006

Hari Singh Vs. Ajit Singh and others

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh.
Present: Mr. SS Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. , for the State.

Virender Singh, J.

Ajit Singh, his wife-Shakuntla and Anita, wife of Ashok Kumar were booked in a case FIR No. 295 dated 27-9-1999, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC registered at police station DLF Gurgaon. Vide impugned judgment Ajit Singh was convicted under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC, whereas the other two accused were acquitted. In fact all the accused were charged under Sections 304-B/34, 498-A/34 and 302/34 IPC. Ajit Singh stands acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted for the aforesaid two charges. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2-1/2 years with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A IPC and RI for 7 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-B IPC.

For default clauses also some imprisonment has been imposed. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the acquittal of Shakuntla and Anita respondents for all the charges and also for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Ajit Singh, on the ground that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence qua Shakuntla and Anita (since acquitted) and at the same time there were no mitigating circumstances for awarding minimum prescribed sentence to Ajit Singh Criminal Revision No. 1516 of 2004 2

respondent.

The State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment even with regard to acquittal of Shakuntla and Anita or on the ponit of inadequacy of sentence qua Ajit Singh.

The learned State counsel otherwise states that Ajit Singh after suffering conviction has filed his appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 633-SB of 2004).

Since the State has not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid 3 respondents, the scope of interference in a revision filed by the complainant narrows down to the extent of gross illegality or manifest illegality in the judgment under challenge. In a revision, the acquittal already earned cannot be converted into conviction. The scope of revision in such type of situation 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.

In the light of the aforesaid ratio, I find no infirmity either on facts Criminal Revision No. 1516 of 2004 3

or on law with regard to the acquittal of Shakuntla and Anita respondents. So far as sentence imposed upon Ajit Singh respondent is concerned, may be that the trial Court has not given any reason for awarded minimum prescribed sentence (7 years) but taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case, the sentence imposed upon him is not inadequate. Another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that admittedly the State of Haryana has not shown in grievance on the point of inadequacy of sentence, invoking the statutory provisions of appeal.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any substance.

[Virender Singh]

Judge

9-1-2006.

`ask'


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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