Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 September, 2022
POOJA SHARMA
2022.09.14 06:06
CRR No.1364 of 2022 (O&M) 1
234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1364 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.09.2022
Sushma Petitioner
versus
StateofHaryana&ors, aes Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
REK
Present :-Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
Kee
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner-complainant is in revision against the order passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 06.12.2021 whereby the
appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-
complainant affirming the order passed by the trial Court passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat dated 04.07.2016. FIR No.276
dated 20.07.2014 under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC at Police
Station Sadar, Panipat was registered at the behest of the petitioner-
complainant wherein it was alleged that :-
"On 16.07.2014 at about 7/8:00 PM when the
complainant Sushma and her husband were irrigating their fields,
accused Sandeep arrived there. He started abusing both of them
yelling that he would teach them a lesson for making complaint
against him. He also called his brother Mukesh. Getting afraid, the
complainant rushed to her home and her husband ran towards
village Chhajpur. On her wav to home, accused Mukesh and
Sandeep restrained complainant Sushma in front of house of Bala
Musalman and beat her giving kicks and punch blows. The passers-
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
by rescued her. Meanwhile, her husband Raj Kumar also arrived in
the street, When they both were going towards their house, accused
Sandeep and Mukesh again restrained them in another street and
started beating them. After a while their father Rameshwar aise
arrived there. He also abused the complainant and her husband. in
the meantime, people of the locality gathered on the spot and on
seeing them all three Sandeep. Mukesh and Rameshwar ran away."
After analyzing the evidence on record threadbare, the trial
Court found that :-
POOJA SHARMA
2022.09.14 06:06
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
"U2. ft is important to note that there is no independent witness. No
person of the locality who allegedly witnessed the occurrence was
examined by the prosecution. Although the complainant and PW-4
Raji Kumar stated that all persons of the locality had gathered on
the spot and witnessed the incident but they failed to name even a
single person. During his cross-examination, the investigating
officer PW-2 investigating officer ASI Hari Ram stated that he had
verified about the fact of scuffle from 10-12 persons of the locality
but there is no document on record mentioning name of any such
person. The prosecution has also not examined any such witness.
Rather, the complainant during her cross-examination deposed that
only a verbal spat had taken place on the said day. The conduct of
the complainant and her husband is doubtful. The presence of
complainant's husband Raj Kumar on the spot ts highly doubtful. As
per the complainant, when the accused persons had come to their
fields and started abusing them, her husband had run towards
village Chhajpur and she came back to her home in village Jalpar.
Further, she alleged that the accused had also come to village
/alpar and assaulted her in the street in front of house of Bala
Musalman. As per the complainant her husband witnessed the
occurrence. if is incomprehensible as to how complainant's
husband Raj Kumar reached village Jalpar when he had gone to
another village Chhajpur, that too in the same duration of time.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning here that the complainant and
her husband stated on oath that the complainant was not keeping
good health for last 5/6 years. The nature of injuries mentioned in
the MLR coupled with the fact that no external injury mark was
present on the body of the complainant and no time or duration of
injury has been suggested by the doctor creates doubt about the
truthfulness of the allegations made by the complainant that the
injury was inflicted by accused Sandeep and Mukesh. The nature of
injuries is not such that it cannot be sustained by falling on hard
surface. Furthermore, the MLR Fx. PW-I*C indicates that the
complainant was taken to the hospital by Sonu son of Satnarian and
not by Sandeep son of Ram Mehar. This fact also makes the
testimony of the complainant and her husband doubtful."
The judgment of acquittal was taken in appeal by the
petitioner-complainant. Appellate Court while concurring the finding
recorded by the trial Court held that :-
"12, ft is evident that the testimony of appellant and other
witnesses are full of contradictions which prove that the prosecution
has failed to prove the charge against the respondents beyond
reasonable doubt and that the respondents have been extended
benefit of doubt rightly by the learned lower Court. The Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court held in Lal Singh V. State of
Punjab and others, Cri. Misc. No. A-1007 of 2012 decided on
12.01.2015 that 'in an appeal against acquitial in the absence of
perversity in the judgment and order, interference by Appeliant
Court is not warranted. [t is held that an order of acquittal is to be
interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial
reasons" for doing so'. In return the present case, the order of
acquittal of respondents passed by learned Lower Court is well
reasoned and substantiated by sufficient and cogent evidence. The
prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondents
beyond reasonable doubt and the respondents have rightly been
given the benefit of doubt."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have
carefully gone through the record of the case.
The scope of revision against acquittal stands settled by Apex
Court in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and
POOJA SHARMA
2022.09.14 06:06
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
others vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002 AIR
(SQ) 2907 wherein it has been held that -
"12. We have carefully considered the material on
record and we are satisfied that the High Court was
not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on
record and coming to a different conclusion in a
revision preferred by the informant under Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section
(3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in
Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High
Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a
limitation on the powers of the revisional court,
prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal
into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature
and extent of the revisional power conferred by
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the
High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal
into one of conviction directly, it could not do so
indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is
well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that
the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in
revision with an order of acquittal except in
exceptional cases where the interest of public justice
requires interference for the correction of a manifest
illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of
justice. The High Court will not be justified in
interfering with an order of acquittal merely because
the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or
has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither
possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of
circumstances in which exercise of revisional
jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this
POOJA SHARMA Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of
2022.09.14 06:06
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an
appeal against acquittal by a private party. (See AIR
1951 Supreme Court 196 : D. Stephens v. Nosibolla;
AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788 : K.C. Reddy v. State
of Andhra Pradesh; (1973) 2 SCC 583 : Akalu Ahir
and others v. Ramdeo Ram; AIR 1975 Supreme
Court 1854 : Patakalapati Narayana Gajapathi
Raju and others v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and
another and AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 :
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh)."
Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any
evidence on record, which can be said to have been ignored or has been
mis-read.
Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of
the case and in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra), no case for exercising
revisional jurisdiction is made out.
Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
12.09.2022
Pooja sharma-I
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
POOJA SHARMA
2022.09.14 06:06
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
