Ram Jas vs State of Haryana and others

Virender Singh, J.

Lal Chand son of Basti Ram, his wife Akuri and his five sons namely Ranjit alias Jeet, Balbir, Dharam Paul, Ramji Lal and Rameshwar, the respondents herein were booked in a case FIR No. 42 dated 30.3.1988 registered at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa under Sections 498A/323 IPC. They were convicted for the aforesaid offences by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa vide judgment dated 5/7.1.1991. An appeal was preferred by them which now stands allowed vide impugned judgment dated 8.4.1991 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

Ram Jas the complainant FIR lodger has preferred the instant revision petition against the acquittal of the aforesaid respondents. It has been brought to my notice by learned counsel for the respondents that no appeal has been preferred against their acquittal by the State of Haryana. Mr. Brar, learned State counsel also confirms this factual position. However, there is no certificate attached with the present revision petition issued by the office of Advocate General, Haryana. The present revision petition should not have been entertained by the Registry in the absence of said certificate. This is a lapse on the part of the concerned official of the concerned branch. However, I do not take serious note of this fact at this stage as the matter is very old one.

There was some delay in filing the present revision petition which was condoned by this Court vide order dated 17.12.1991. However, record reveals that no formal order is passed in this case for admission. That appears to be the reason that the lower court record has also not been summoned in this case.

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire available record. Judgments of both the courts below have also been perused by me minutely with the assistance of learned counsel of either side. The statements of certain witnesses recorded by the trial Court have also been read before me.

I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court whereby the conviction recorded by the trial Court of all the respondents was set aside.

The scope of revision against the acquittal has been well discussed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias R.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 61 (SC) , wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further observed that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. It is further observed by their Lordships that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate Court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a re trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused, and that itself must caution the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.

In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh''s case (supra), their Lordships have relied upon the decisions in D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196, K.C. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788, Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram, (1973) 2 SCC 583, Patakalapti Naryana Gajapathi Raju and others v. Ramapalli Peda Appadu and another, AIR 1975 SC 1854 and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and following the ratio of the decision in Bindeshwari''s case (supra), no case for interference is made out while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Revision dismissed.