High Court, in criminal revision under S. 397, CrPC, refused to interfere with the acquittal of respondents tried for offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC for non-proving genesis of occurrence and lack of independent corroboration to prosecution witnesses.
The instant revision petition was dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Crl. Revision No. 1879 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.11.2009 *****
Sunil Kumar
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
**Present:Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Delay condoned.
Respondents No.2 and 3 were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari for an offence under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC in case FIR No. 314 dated 25.8.1998,, P.S. Jagadhari, got registered by the petitioner. The learned trial court acquitted the respondents on conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment dated 9.3.2007. Dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioner though preferred a revision before the Court of Session, but the same was dismissed being not maintainable. Hence, the petitioner is preferring the instant revision petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the paper book, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground to interfere with the acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3 is made out. Nonproving the genesis of occurrence; contradictory version with no specific attribution of the private respondents coupled with the facts that there was no independent corroboration to the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution failed to show the injuries being sustained by the accused, were the vital factors, taken into consideration by the trial Court while acquitting the private respondents by observing that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal
2
unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence.
In the circumstances, the instant revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 13,2009 Jiten
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the acquittal of respondents who were tried by the trial court for offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar
State of Haryana
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
