Guddi vs Dharmpal and Others

Ritu Bahri, J.—This revision is against the judgment dated 27.11.2012 whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar (Annexure P1) has upheld the conviction and modified the sentence by releasing the appellant on probation. A complaint was got registered on the statement made by Guddi that her husband along with 6 brothers and 2 sisters were having a dispute qua the property between family members. On 25.9.2012 a compromise regarding the house was effected. Thereafter, in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. her brother-in-law namely Dharmpal, Maina, her sister-in-law, Radhey Shyam, her brother-in-law, Lichma, wife of Radhey Shyam, Subhash son of Dharmpal, Lichma wife of Subhash, Suraj Bhan son of Dharmpal, Gobind, sister-in-law Chandrawali and Ram Singh brother-in-law came in front of her house having lathis in their hands in furtherance of their common object and raised an alarm to teach her a lesson for effecting a compromise with Jhaman. They started abusing her. When she asked them not to do so, then they entered into her house. Subhash son of Dharmpal hit her with lathi on her right hand. Her brother-in-law namely Radhey Shyam hit her with a lathi on the wrist of her left hand. She made a noise, on hearing the noise her husband Dalip, brother-in-law Norang Ram and her son Budh Ram came there. The accused caused injuries to them also. In the meantime, several persons from the village came there and after seeing them the above named accused while threatening them ran away from the spot.

The challan was presented after completing the investigation and the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325, 452 read with Section 149 IPC vide order dated 5.6.2003.

To prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses namely PW 1 Guddi, complainant, PW 2 Budh Ram, PW 3 Ratni, PW 4 Dalip, PW 5 Dr. Santosh, PW 6 Norang Rai, PW 7 Dr. Arun Gupta, PW 8 Dr. R.P. Singhal, PW 9 Dr. Ratna Bharti and PW 10 ASI Roshan Singh. The prosecution evidence was closed by court order.

Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.

After going through the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 323, 325, 452 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

On appeal, the sentence has been modified and the appellants have been released on probation as they have been facing criminal trial for the last about 7 years. It has been observed that the prosecution was not able to prove the injuries by asking any question to the Doctors examined by the prosecution. The Appellate Court found that the defence version where the doctors admitted that such type of injuries are possible by a fall on some hard surface.

The Supreme Court in Sheetala Prasad and Others Vs. Sri Kant and Another, has laid down the parameters for exercising revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. The relevant para 12 is reproduced as under:-

The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of a private complainant.

(1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce,

(2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible,

(3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused,

(4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, no ground is made out to interfere in the powers exercised by the Appellate Court u/s 360 Cr.P.C. by releasing the petitioner on probation. The dispute was between close family relations and the prosecution has not been able to prove the injuries by asking relevant questions to the Doctor. The evidence led by the prosecution has been assessed correctly, no evidence has been brushed aside as inadmissible or overlooked by the trial Court. No ground to entertain the revision is made out. The revision is dismissed.