Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 May, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107
Criminal Revision No.951 of 2024
Date of decision: May 10th, 2024
Sukhdev Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the order
dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Tarn Taran, whereby his application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.
was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel contends that the prayer made by him in
his application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should have been
granted because during the trial, the Public Prosecutor, while
examining the petitioner as PW-4, mistakenly exhibited his statement
recorded at the time of the FIR instead of ensuring his statement was
recorded in Court under oath. This led to the erroneous acquittal of the
accused-respondents. It has been further argued that the
examination-in-chief or the petitioner should have been conducted
under oath, and the substance of such an examination should have been
provided in writing and also signed by him and his witnesses;
evidently, the trial Court disregarded the legal provisions, and the
PUNEET SACHDEVA petitioner's statutory right to get his statement recorded in accordance
with law. This negligence on the part of the Public Prosecutor had
severely prejudiced his case and it was in the above background, the
petitioner (complainant) had sought permission under Section 391 of
the Cr.P.C. to re-record his examination-in-chief for a fair decision of
the case.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the relevant material on record.
4. It would be necessary to outline the sequence of events
leading to the filing of the instant revision petition. The FIR in question
was filed on 12.07.2009 by the petitioner, and thereafter, charges were
framed against the accused on 27.01.2016. The petitioner-complainant
was examined on 22.02.2017, with the prosecution's evidence
concluding on 12.09.2017. Thereafter, the learned trial Court delivered
its judgment on 19.01.2018. The appellant impugned the judgment
passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal on 07.02.2018.
5. Considering the sequence of events, it would be crucial to
highlight the significant delay in filing the application under Section
391 of the Cr.P.C. only on 20.10.2023. There is no cogent much less
convincing explanation provided by the petitioner for this inordinate
delay, especially since there was no change in circumstances between
07.02.2018 and 20.10.2023. Except for vaguely blaming the
Public Prosecutor for conducting inadequate examination, nothing has
been brought to the notice of this Court to justify as to why the
petitioner-complainant chose to keep mum all throughout and woke up
from his slumber after such a long delay. Additionally, though a perusal
of the order reveals that one of the grounds mentioned by the petitioner
for the delay in filing of the application under Section 391 of the
Cr.P.C. was of engaging a new counsel, however, this alone would not
justify the delay more so when there is no mention in the said regard in
the application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Attributing the acquittal of the accused solely on account
of the alleged faulty examination-in-chief of the complainant would be
an overstatement. The trial Court has highlighted material
contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant as well as his
brother, casting doubt on the version put forth by the complainant.
Moreover, the complainant was subjected to an extensive cross-
examination, coupled with the fact that the Court below also noted the
delay in the registration of the FIR and the existence of another
criminal case against him.
7. As per various judicial pronouncements, the provisions of
Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be invoked only if the evidence could
not be presented during trial despite due diligence or if new facts
emerge later in the appeal. In the present case, the complainant had
ample opportunity to address concerns during the course of the trial
itself but failed to do so. The application under Section 391 of the
Cr.P.C., which has been filed after an unexplained and inordinate delay
of over five years, does not present any exceptional grounds for its
consideration.
8. As a sequence to the above, this Court does not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
9. The instant petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
May 10th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
