Sharanjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and others

Virender Singh, J.—Sukhwinder Singh and Dhan Kaur respondent Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class,

Hoshiarpur vide impugned judgment dated 8.11.2004. They were charged under sections 324, 323 read with section 34 IPC. State of Punjab has

not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the aforesaid respondents. Hence, this revision by the complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment also.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment either on facts or on law which

would call for interference of this Court.

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 vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) RCR (Cri) 61, 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 was no justification for the

High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to

reach a finding different than the one arrived at by 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.

Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand and following the ratio of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad

Singh''s case (supra), the petitioner has no case. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.