Kana vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32832)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7938 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32832]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 489/2002

Kana son of Shri Nandnath resident of Bhalka, Police Station Bengu District Chittorharh.

                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
 State
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    None
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment

Reserved on 13/09/2023 pronounced on 05/10/2023

01- fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk ;g fuxjkuh fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV csxwa] ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ ds fu.kZ; fnukad 24-08-1998 o vihyh; U;k;ky; vij ls"ku U;k;k/kh"k Øe&2] fpRrkSM+x<+ ds fu.kZ; fnukad 06-06-2002 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 02- la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd fnukad 11-02-1989 dks ";kelqUnj us Fkkuk iqfyl csxaw] ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ esa mifLFkr gksdj tqckuh bfryk bl vk"k; dh nh fd vkt lqcg djhc 12 cts vius ?kj ls Ldwy esa i<+us ds fy, vk jgk Fkk] tSls gh Ldwy ds xzkm.M ij vk;k rks ns[kk fd nl&ckjg cPps fØdsV [ksy jgs Fks fd ,d VªsDVj lkeus ls lM+d ls lh/kk xzkm.M esa gksdj vk jgk Fkk fd xzkm.M ds chp esa xQyr] ykijokgh o rst j¶rkj ls MªkbZoj VªsDVj dks pykrk gqvk yk;k o [ksyus okys yM+dksa esa ls ,d yM+ds dks VªsDVj dh nkfgus rjQ Oghy ls VDdj ekj nh] yM+dk uhps fxj x;k o Oghy yM+ds ds flj ij vxyk fiNyk o Vªksyh dk ifg;k fQj x;k] ftlls flj ij [kwu fudy x;k o mldk Hkstk ckgj fudy x;kA yM+dk ftlds pksV yxh Fkh mldk uke eqjyh/kj Nhik FkkA og

[2023:RJ-JD:32832] (2 of 8) [CRLR-489/2002]

vkSj ,d yM+dk uke ukekywe eqjyh/kj dks lkbZfdy ij Mkydj gkWLihVy ys x;sA yM+dk csgks"k gks x;k FkkA VªsDVj ds uacj vkjts,p 4713 rFkk Vªksyh dk uacj vkjts,p 4714 Fkk] VªsDVj Vªksyh esa iRFkj Hkjs gq, FksA mDr fjiksVZ ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 47@89 vUrxZr /kkjk 279] 337 o 338 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ntZ dh xbZA ckn r¶rh"k bl ekeys esa eqjyh/kj dh e`R;q gks tkus ls /kkjk 304, o 279 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa fnukad 30-05-1989 dks pkyku is"k fd;k x;kA 03- vfHk;qDr dks vkjksi lkjka"k lquk;k tkdj fopkj.k fd;k x;kA dqy 12 xokgku vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ijhf{kr djok;s x;sA vfHk;qDr ds /kkjk 313 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr c;ku eqyfte fy;s x;sA 04- cgl vfUre lquh tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV csxwa] ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ }kjk fu;fer vkjkf/kd izdj.k la[;k 263@89 ljdkj cuke dkuk esa fu.kZ; o n.Mkns"k fnukad 24-08-98] dks ikfjr djrs gq, vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 304, Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k dk nks'kh Bgjkrs gq, ,d o'kZ dk lk/kkj.k dkjkokl o nks lkS :i;s vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k ,oa vne vnk;xh tqekZuk iUnzg fnu ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj vihy dh xbZA vihyh; U;k;ky; vij ls"ku U;k;k/kh"k Øe 2] fpRrkSM+x<+ }kjk vihy QkStnkjh izdj.k la[;k 46@99 dkuk cuke jktLFkku jkT; ntZ dj fu.kZ; fnukad 06-06-2002 dks ikfjr djrs gq, vihy vihykFkhZ [kkfjt dh xbZ] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fuxjkuh is"k dh xbZ gSA 05- fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk viuh fuxjkuh esa ;g vk/kkj fy;k x;k fd nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ij lgh rjhds ls fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl ekeys esa tSls gh VªsDVj vk;k e`rd nwljh rjQ tkus ds fy, vpkud VªsDVj ds vkxs vk x;k ftlls mldh e`R;q gqbZA bl ekeys esa nq?kZVuk Lo;a e`rd dh xyrh ls gqbZ Fkh VªsDVj pkyd dks blds fy, ftEesnkj ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA xokgku dh lk{; vkSj uD"kk ekSdk esa egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkk'k gS ftu ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA bu vk/kkjksa ij nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; fujLr djus vkSj fodYi esa vfHk;qDr dks Hkqxrh ltk esa NksM+s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

[2023:RJ-JD:32832] (3 of 8) [CRLR-489/2002]

06- bl ekeys esa iwoZ rkjh[k is"kh fnukad 28-06-2017 dks fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha Fkk ,oa fnukad 13-09-2023 dks Hkh fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gksus ls fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dh cgl lquh xbZ] i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA bl fuxjkuh esa mBk;s x;s vk/kkjksa o v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu dj xq.kkoxq.k ij ekeys dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk jgk gSA ;g izdj.k fopkj.k o v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent finding ds fo:) dh xbZ fuxjkuh ls lacaf/kr gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`'Vkar Malkeet Singh Gill vs The State Of Chhattisgarh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2022 ds iSjk la[;k 9 esa fuEukuqlkj fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %& "9. This Court in the case of 'Manju Ram Kalita vs State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330', while dealing with the scope of re-appreciation of evidence by higher Court in criminal revision, observed in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as under:

"9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re-appreciating the evidence.

10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.

"8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure."

[2023:RJ-JD:32832] (4 of 8) [CRLR-489/2002]

11. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below as the said courts have exercised their discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. Even if two views are possible on the question of fact, we, being the fourth court, should not interfere even though we may exercise discretion differently had the case come before us initially. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned nor the quantum of punishment on this count is required to be interfered with."

07- blh izdkj e/;izns"k mPp U;k;ky; dh tcyiqj cSap }kjk QkStnkjh fuxjkuh la[;k 5044@2022 foosd yks/kh cuke LVsV vkWQ e/;izns"k fu.kZ; fnukad 17-08-2023 esa nks v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent finding ds fu.kZ; dh voLFkk esa fuxjkuh U;k;ky;¼mPp U;k;ky;½ dks /kkjk 397 o 401 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr re-appreciation of evidence djus dk vf/kdkj gS vFkok ugha bl ij fopkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj iSjk uacj 5 ls 8 esa fuEu fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %&

"5. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of court u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC. In this connection, I would like to refer decisions of Hon'ble apex court in State Vs. R.

Soundirarasu ,AIR 2022 SC 4218, State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 (3-Judge Bench).

6.In Duli Chand (supra), Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-

"5.........The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. ....."

[2023:RJ-JD:32832] (5 of 8) [CRLR-489/2002]

7.In R. Soundirarasu (supra), Hon'ble apex court has held asunder:-"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held asunder:-

"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.". Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. There revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has be encharged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."

8.In Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (supra), Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-

"21.In embarking upon the minutest re- examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of theself-restraint that he was required to exercise in are vision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004[Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.

22.The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if

[2023:RJ-JD:32832] (6 of 8) [CRLR-489/2002]

necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court."It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C.

conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power."

08- mDr U;kf;d n`'Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ls ;g fof/kd fLFkfr Li'V gS fd tc nks U;k;ky;ksa }kjk lk{; o rF;ksa dk foospu fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj nks U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent finding fdlh ekeys esa gS rks rhljs U;k;ky; dks re-appreciation of evidence ugha djuk pkfg, tc rd fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa

dk fu.kZ; Totally perverse u gks vFkok fu.kZ; esa grave error of law or procedure u gksA mPp U;k;ky; dks fu;ekuqlkj vihyh; U;k;ky; dh rjg ekeys ij fopkj ugha djuk pkfg,A 09- mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; ij fopkj dj vfHk;qDr fuxjkuhdrkZ dks /kkjk 304, Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vkjksi esa nks'kh Bgjk;k x;k] ftldh vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; ij fopkj dj iqf'V dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; leku gSA bl ekeys esa nks U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent finding gS rFkk mPp U;k;ky; rhljk U;k;ky; gksus ls lk/kkj.kr;k concurrent finding esa re-appreciation of evidence ugha fd;k tkuk gS tc rd fd U;k;ky; dks ;g izrhr u gks fd nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; Totally perverse gaS ;k fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds fcydqy foijhr gSaA

10- bl fLFkfr dks ns[kus ds fy, fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk viuh fuxjkuh esa tks vk/kkj fy;s x;s gSa mu ij fopkj fd;k x;kA fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk vius vk/kkjksa esa

[2023:RJ-JD:32832] (7 of 8) [CRLR-489/2002]

v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; Totally perverse ;k fof/k ds lqLFkkfir fl}kUrksa ds foijhr gks ,slk vk/kkj ugha fy;k gS] u gh ,slk dksbZ rF; crk;k x;k gS tks vfHkys[k ij gksus ds ckotwn v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk xkSj u fd;k x;k gksA 11- gekjs }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k tks lk{; vkbZ gS ml ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj tks foospu fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k x;k ml ij fopkj fd;k x;kA nksuksa gh U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHk;qDr fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk ykijokgh ls VªsDVj dks pykdj eSnku dh rjQ ykuk vkSj VªsDVj dh VDdj ekjuk o VªsDVj dk ifg;k e`rd eqjyh/kj ds flj ij ls fudy tkuk vkSj mlls eqjyh/kj dh e`R;q gks tkuk lkfcr ekuk x;k gSA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn"kZ ih&5 esa fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh dh jk; ds eqrkfcd flj dh pksV dh otg ls e`R;q gksuk Li'V :i ls vafdr gS vkSj bl ekeys esa uD"kk ekSdk izn"kZ ih&3 esa gkykr ekSdk dk o.kZu fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa [ksy ds eSnku esa ls gh VªsDVj dk tk jgs gksuk o [ksy ds eSnku esa gh nq?kZVuk gksuk Li'V gSA 12- xokgku ds c;ku esa vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls Lo;a dk okgu dk pkyd ugha gksus dk cpko ugha fy;k x;k vkSj xokg ih-MCY;w 11 bUnzey }kjk Li'V :i ls VªsDVj dkuk dkycsfy;k }kjk pyk;k tkuk] tks gkftj vnkyr gksuk crk;k x;k gSA bl xokg ls bl laca/k esa dksbZ ftjg ugha dh xbZ gSA c;ku eqyfte esa Hkh dksbZ vk/kkj vfHk;qDr fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls ugha fy;k x;k] u gh cpko i{k esa dksbZ lk{; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k is"k dh xbZ gSA VªsDVj ls VDdj gksus ckcr xokg ih-MCY;w&12 jktq }kjk Li'V lk{; nh xbZ gSA bl xokg us eqjyh/kj ds VDdj ekjuk o mlds mij ls iwjk Vk;j fQj tkuk crk;k gSA ,slh voLFkk esa bl ekeys esa nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; Totally perverse fu.kZ; dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs gSa rFkk bu fu.kZ;ksa esa grave error of law or procedure gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA nks U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent finding gksus ls bl fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA 13- tgka rd ltk de fd;s tkus dk iz"u gS ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`'Vkar Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana (2000)5 SCC 82 ds ekeys esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 304, Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds

[2023:RJ-JD:32832] (8 of 8) [CRLR-489/2002]

ekeys esa vf/kdre ltk nh tkuh pkfg,] /kkjk 4 ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg,A mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys esa tks ltk nh xbZ gS mls de fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrk gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 14- vr% fuxjkuhdrkZ dkuk dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g fuxjkuh [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV csxwa] ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ }kjk QkStnkjh ewy izdj.k la[;k 263@89 ljdkj cuke dkuk esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 24-08-1998 o mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) izLrqr vihy QkStnkjh izdj.k la[;k 46@99 dkuk cuke jktLFkku jkT; esa vihyh; U;k;ky; vij ls"ku U;k;k/kh"k Øe 2] fpRrkSM+x<+ }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 06-06-2002 dh iq'Vh dh tkrh gSA vfHk;qDr fuxjkuhdrkZ ds mifLFkfr ckcr tekur eqpyds fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA vfHk;qDr fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa ltk Hkqxrus gsrq ljsaMj djsA fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfHk;qDr dks ltk Hkqxrkus gsrq fu;ekuqlkj nkf[ky tsy djk;sA vfHk;qDr mifLFkr ugha gksus ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfHk;qDr dks ryc dj ltk Hkqxrk;sA 15- bl ekeys esa ;fn vU; dksbZ izkFkZuk i= is"k fd;k gqvk gS rks mls Hkh fuLrkfjr le>k tkosA bl fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dk vfHkys[k ykSVk;k tkosA

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J SN LOHRA/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)