Avtar Singh vs Sukhmander Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Avtar Singh complainant has preferred the present revision petition directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated 31.1.1995. The learned trial court acquitted the accused persons awarding them the benefit of doubt.

The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that Avtar Singh has four brothers and two sisters. His sister Surjit Kaur was married to Gursharan Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Kot Bhai. Her husband died during the Blue Star Operation in the year 1984. Thereafter Surjit Kaur started living with Avtar Singh. Surjit Kaur started running a school with the help of other teachers at village Jand Wala Charat Singh. She used to visit the school every day.

On 10.2.1992 the petitioner, his sister Surjit Kaur along with their cousin Mehar Singh went to the said village in a bus. They reached there at about 8.30 or 8.45 A.M. After getting down from the bus they were going towards the school on foot. At about 8.45 A.M. they reached near the field of Tar Singh. Both the respondents were present. Sukhmander Singh was armed with a Kirpan while Baljinder Singh was armed with Kappa. They raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to Surjit Kaur to prosecute the case of mutation of land of her husband. Thereupon Sukhmander Singh gave a kirpan blow on the head of Surjit Kaur while Baljinder Singh gave Kappa blow on her neck. While Surjit Kaur fell, both the respondents hit her on her neck, mouth and head with their weapons. Kirpan blow was also given in her abdomen. Surjit kaur died at the spot.

The petitioner and Mehar Singh raised an alarm as a result of which both the respondents made good their escape. The motive of the crime was recited to be that there was a dispute pertaining to land between Surjit Kaur and wives of the respondents. It is on basis of these facts that investigation was taken up. The respondents were arrested and put to trial.

The learned trial court on appraisal of evidence held that case of the prosecution was not free from doubt. The evidence of the prosecution was scanned. Taking note of inherent probabilities, the benefit of doubt was awarded and the respondents were acquitted.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the findings of the learned trial court contending that the evidence of the eye witnesses was available. There was no reason to discard the same and in the peculiar facts, therefore, the findings of the trial court could not be sustained.

However, principle of law was not being disputed that when the State does not choose to file an appeal against acquittal, the aggrieved person can file a revision against acquittal. It is also not being disputed that under sub section (3) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, nothing authorises the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The High Court can only interfere if the evidence has been misread or important evidence ignored. Merely because if on appraisal of evidence, it is felt that a finding to the contrary would be arrived at, will not be a justification for the High Court to interfere in a revision against an order of acquittal.

Certain salient features of the present case which prevailed with the trial court to acquit the respondents cannot be ignored. There was some delay in recording of the First Information Report. While the complainant Avtar Singh went to get the report recorded, he did not report about the occurrence in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gidderbaha. The said office falls on the way. The petitionercomplainant could not disclose the name of the driver of the truck in which he travelled and, therefore, it was doubtful if the petitioner was an eye witness to the incident. The same conclusion could be arrived at from the fact that the petitioner and another person had accompanied the deceased. While respondents attacked on the deceased, they never tried to intervene or to save her. The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution. While the Kappa blow was given on the neck of Surjit Kaur, the same was not found in the postmortem report. Another fact highlighted which cannot be ignored was that the medical evidence further contradicts the occular witnesses. The evidence produced in the court was that they had walked from the village to Baru Chowk and then they boarded the bus and reached Bus Stand Jand Wala Charat Singh. It was rightly pointed by the respondents that if Surjit Kaur had died at about 8.45 A.M. then there would be undigested food in the stomach. This negatived the prosecution case that incident took place at 8.45 A.M.

These findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be without any logic. The evidence had been considered and the trial court arrived at a right conclusion. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the revision petition.

For these reasons, the petition being without merit fails and is dismissed.