In this revision petition against an acquittal, the Court held that it cannot re-appreciate evidence without manifest error. Upholding the trial court's view, the High Court dismissed the petition.
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.
CRR No.650 of 2000
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.650 of 2000 Date of decision: 17.07.2012
Sukhdev Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. G.S. Benipal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Petitioner has preferred present revision petition against the judgment dated 3.2.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, in case FIR No.83 dated 30.9.1995 under Sections 325/324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sardulgarh.
The brief facts of the present case are that on 30.9.1995 at about 4.00 p.m. Sukhdev Singh and his sons had diverted the canal water near Dera (Dhaini) of Harbeant Singh, ahead of the fields of Mukhtiar Singh, as they wanted to flow the canal water through the sanctioned water channel, in which tubewell water of Harbeant Singh etc. was already flowing. When the canal water reached near the diversion point of Harbeant Singh etc. they started strengthening that diversion point. Gurcharan Singh son of Sukhdev Singh petitioner asked them that since their canal water was coming in that water channel, they should stop their tubewell water. Upon this, there was a
CRR No.650 of 2000
-2-
minor verbal duel. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh and his sons without irrigating their fields returned to their house. After sometime Harbeant Singh, Hargobind Singh, Gurdev Sngh and Maghar Singh sons of Dal Singh and Mastate alias Machhri son of Gurdit Singh residents of Ranjitgarh Bandra came to the house of the petitioner Sukhdev Singh etc. and attacked them. Harbeant Singh gave a gandasa blow on the right arm of Sukhdev Singh. Thereafter, the injuries were caused on the person of Sukhdev Singh and his son by Harbeant Singh etc. Sukhdev Singh etc. fired a shot from the gun but they did not know as to whom that shot hit. Thereafter, the accused ran away from in front of the door of the house of Sukhdev Singh. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh and Gurcharan Singh were got admitterd to PHC, Sardulgarh, where they were medico-legally examined. MLRs of Sukhdev Singh and Gurcharan Singh were sent to the police station and ASI Gulzar Singh recorded the statement Ex.PD of Sukhdev Singh on which endorsement Ex.PD/1 was appended. The police proceedings were completed at 10.00 a.m. on 1.10.1995 and thereafter the report was lodged in DDR. On 6.10.1995 on receipt of X-ray report related to Sukhdev Singh and Gurcharan Singh, which showed two fractures on the person of Sukhdev Singh, offence under Section 323 IPC was added. On 13.10.1995, Mahnga Singh produced Hargobind Singh and Gurdev Singh accused. Gurdev Singh was in possession of Kahi. He produced kahi before Gulzar Singh. The rough sketch Ex.PG of the kahi was prepared. Thereafter, the kahi was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG/1 attested by Mahnga Singh and Jaspal Singh. Hargobind Singh and Gurdev Singh were arrested and were released on bail as the offences were bailable.
CRR No.650 of 2000
-3-
On 16.10.1995 Mastate Singh and Maghar Singh were arrested. They were also released on bail as the offences were bailable. On 29.10.1995 Harbeant Singh was arrested. He was also released on bail, as the offences were bailable.
After commitment, charges under Section 148 IPC against all the accused, under Section 324 IPC against Harbeant Singh, under Section 324/149 IPC against the remaining accused, under Section 325 IPC against Harbeant Singh and under Section 325/149 IPC against all the remaining accused, under Section 323 IPC against Harbeant Singh and under Section 323/149 IPC against the remaining accused were framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide order dated 9.2.1996.
From the prosecution side as many as five witnesses were examined.
Learned trial Court having perused the statement made by prosecution witnesses and having perused entire record has come to the conclusion that entire chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, hence offence against the accused is not proved and ultimately acquitted the accused.
In the present case, neither manifest error of law nor jurisdictional error is pointed out by the revisionist. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that from the evidence available on the record, guilt of the accused is proved.
I am afraid, while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I cannot re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left by the trial Court while deciding the case.
CRR No.650 of 2000
-4-
In the opinion of this Court, even if two views are possible on the appreciation of evidence available on record, the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused must prevail and this Court should not substitute its view over the view taken by the learned trial Court.
Petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
July 17, 2012 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence to overturn the trial court's acquittal in the absence of manifest error or jurisdictional error.
Whether the acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge stands correct when the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete.
Sukhdev Singh
The State of Punjab
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
