The Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a complainant challenging acquittals. It held that the evidence was insufficient and the appellate court appreciated evidence correctly, noting interference is limited to procedural defects or misreading of evidence.
Revision petition dismissed for being unmerited.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Rev.No.564 of 2003 Date of decision : 5.3.2009
Sham Lal
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal.
Present :- Mr.N.K.Malhotra for the petitioner. Ms.Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryana.
A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral)
The six persons faced trial under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 read with Section 149 IPC, out of which Mai Lal and Jit Lal were acquitted by the trial court whereas four respondents namely Kartar Singh, Hawa Singh, Jagdish and Ram Kumar were acquitted by the appellate court.
The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal. However, complainant-Sham Lal has filed the revision petition.
Arguments heard and perused the record.
According to factual background, Sube Singh and Lachman suffered injuries at the hands of aforesaid accused. Sube Singh suffered five injuries and Lachman suffered four injuries. A grievous injury on the person of Sube Singh is attributed to Kartare. Grievous injury suffered by Lachman Singh is attributed to Ram Kumar.
The evidence put forth by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to bring the respondents into net. The ocular version does not fit in with the medical evidence. At this revisional stage, the judgment could be interfered only if it suffered from procedural defects or was based on misreading of
2
Crl.Rev.No.564 of 2003
evidence. Rather in the instant case, evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Therefore, this revision petition being unmerited is dismissed.
[ A.N.Jindal ] Judge
05.03.2009
sd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the appellate court acquittal at this revisional stage.
Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to implicate the respondents.
Sham Lal
The State of Haryana
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
