Paramjit Kaur vs Jagmohan Singh And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 6422 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Paramjit Kaur vs Jagmohan Singh And Ors on 21 March, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042476




CRR No.2839 of 2018 (O&M)                                               1
                                                            2024:PHHC:042476


239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                 AT CHANDIGARH


                                          CRM No.29790 of 2018 in/and
                                          CRR No.2839 of 2018
                                          Date of Decision: 21.03.2024

Paramjit Kaur                                         ....Applicant/Petitioner

                                        Versus


Jagmohan Singh and others                                    ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:    Mr. A.P.S. Rehan, Advocate
            for the applicant/petitioner.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CRM No.29790 of 2018

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 112 in filing the present

revision petition.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is

satisfied that the petitioner has made out a sufficient cause to condone

the delay. Resultantly, the application is allowed. Delay of 112 days in

filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned.

Complainant is in revision against judgment passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur whereby the respondents have

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042476

2024:PHHC:042476

been acquitted reversing the findings of conviction recorded by Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur.

2. On the complaint preferred by the petitioner, respondents/

accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 452,

323, 379 IPC and sentenced as under:

Name of the Offence u/s Sentence R.I. Fine In default of respondent payment of fine to further undergo S.I. Jagmohan Singh 452 IPC 2 years Rs.2000/- 6 months

- 323 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 2 months

- 379 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 6 months Harmeet Singh 452 IPC 2 years Rs.2000/- 6 months

- 323 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 2 months

- 379 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 6 months Harpal Singh 452 IPC 2 years Rs.2000/- 6 months

- 323 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 2 months

- 379 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 6 months Ajmer Singh 452 IPC 2 years Rs.2000/- 6 months

- 323 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 2 months

- 379 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 6 months

3. In appeal, the findings have been reversed and the

respondents stand acquitted.

4. As per the complaint, the petitioner alleged that on 9th of

April, 2010 at about 9.00 a.m. respondents came to her house and tried

to take away the harvest combine purchased by her husband. They

came at about 10.00 a.m. on the same day along with accused No.5 to 8

(who were the police officials). Brother-in-law of the petitioner namely

Jaspal Singh was illegally detained in the police post. It is claimed that

again at about 8/8.30 p.m. on the same day, accused/respondents No.1

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042476

2024:PHHC:042476

to 4 illegally trespassed into her house, causing injuries to her and

forcibly took away the harvest combine.

5. Petitioner as well as respondent No.4 Ajmer Singh are

related to each other. Respondent No.4 is her brother-in-law. Trial

Court held respondents guilty of offence punishable under Sections

452, 323, 379 of the IPC and sentenced them as stated hereinabove. In

appeal preferred by the respondents they stood acquitted.

6. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the judgment

passed by the Appellate Court asserts that the same has been passed

without appreciating the evidence on record. Relying upon minor

contradictions between the statements made by the witnesses, Appellate

Court has wrongly reversed a well reasoned judgment passed by the

Trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner claims that injuries on the

person of the petitioner have been proved on record, yet the Appellate

Court acquitted the respondents.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone

through the records of the case.

8. The dispute primarily seems to be w.r.t. possession over the

harvest combine. Petitioner claims that the same was purchased by her

husband along with one Bhupinder Singh, son of Sardool Singh using

his hard earned money. Respondent No.4 Ajmer Singh asserts his right

over the same claiming that the combine was purchased by Manjit

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042476

2024:PHHC:042476

Singh father of husband of the petitioner as well as accused No.4 and

Davinder Singh is not exclusive owner of the same. Husband of the

petitioner Davinder Singh has not entered into the witness box. Thus,

Appellate Court rightly held that the best evidence having been

withheld by the complainant and there is no cogent evidence to prove

that combine on the given date was in exclusive possession of the

petitioner. Appellate Court further relied upon the admission made by

the complainant herself that the house in question was ancestral house

of the parties and electricity meter in the same was installed in the

name of Manjit Singh father of Davinder Singh and respondent No.4

Ajmer Singh. So far as medical examination of the petitioner is

concerned, the concerned witness i.e. CW3 Dr. Harpal Singh admitted

that all the injuries as mentioned in the MLR were simple in nature and

were on the right side of the body of the complainant. He admitted that

the possibility of the injuries due to falling and/or them having been

caused with friendly hands cannot be ruled out.

9. In view of above, this Court finds that the view formulated

by the Appellate Court seems to be more probable than the one

recorded by the Trial Court.

10. Law w.r.t. exercise of jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C.

in the cases involving order of acquittal passed by the Court below

stands well laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bindeshwari

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042476

2024:PHHC:042476

Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (Now

Jharkhand) and another, 2002 AIR (SC) 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 Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of 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

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042476

2024:PHHC:042476

Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another and AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 :

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh)."

11. In view of above, this Court does not find that the present

case falls within the parameters as laid down by the Supreme Court in

the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra). Resultantly,

the revision petition is dismissed.

March 21, 2024                                       (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr                                                      JUDGE
            Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
            Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                              6 of 6