In Crl. Revision No. 1815 of 2002, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a private complaint revision against an acquittal, holding the testmimony had material improvements but no irregularity or miscarriage of justice occurred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 1815 of 2002
Date of decision: February 26, 2009
Ved Pal
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, AAG, Haryana.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition (preferred by a private party) is the judgment dated 1.5.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, acquitting the accused-respondents (herein referred as “the respondent”) of the charges framed against them.
In brief, the facts of the present case are that on 5.2.1999, Santosh-complainant got her statement recorded to the effect that on 4.2.1994, she along with her sister Darshana, father Ved Pal, mother Nahno and Ved Pal son of Kehar Singh went to village Mundasa on account of anniversary of Krishan. When they reached the village, Karamvir, Satbir, Devi Ram, Satwan sons of Badlu Ram, Prem wife of Satbir Singh, Sujani wife of Badlu Ram and Rup Chand met and told them that they were attacked by Badlu Ram with lathi. All the accused were armed with jellies and lathies. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigation commenced. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Crl. Revision No. 1815 of 2002
-2-
On trial, the accused were acquitted of the charges framed
against them.
Having examined the impugned judgment, the same does not suffer from any irregularity much less illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The testimony of Ved Pal suffers from material improvements. He has not described about the weapons which the accused were wielding and who caused which injury. The complainant has also not been examined. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that in case of acquittal, if two views are possible, then the view taken by the trial court in favour of the accused should be accepted.
Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is
dismissed.
(A.N. Jindal) Judge
February 26, 2009 deepak
Ved Pal
State of Haryana
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
