Prem Singh v. Jaspal Singh and Ors

ooINoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAToCHANDIGARHo o

(214)oo o o o o o CRR-136-2010o(O&M)o o o o o Reservedoonoooooo:oo11.03.2026o o o o o Pronouncedoono:oo30.03.2026o o o o o Uploadedoon:ooooooo30.03.2026o o PremoSinghoo o o o o o ……Petitionero Versuso JaspaloSingho&ootherso o o ..…Respondentso o o CORAMo:o HON'BLEoMR.JUSTICEoRAMESHoCHANDERoDIMRIo o Present:-o Mr.J.S.Cooner,oAdvocate,oforotheopetitioner.o o o o Mr.KeshavoPratapoSingh,oAdvocateoando o o Mr.EkteshwaroSidhu,oAdvocate,ofororespondentoNos.1otoo6.o o Mr.A.K.Khubbar,oAddl.A.G.,oHaryana.o o o RAMESHoCHANDERoDIMRI,oJ.o:o o

1.o o oThisojudgmentoshallodisposeoofoaoCriminaloRevisionoPetitiono filedo againsto theo judgmento datedo 27.07.2009o passedo byo theo Learnedo Addl.SessionsoJudge,oAmbalao(forobrevity,o"AppellateoCourt")obyowhicho anoappealofiledobyotheorespondents/accusedo(forobrevity,o"accused")owaso disposedo ofo ando theo judgmento ofo convictiono datedo 27.07.2007o wasoo modifiedotootheoextentothatotheoaccused-NarinderoSinghowasooacquittedoofo theochargeoframedoagainstohimowhereasootheroaccusedowereoorderedotoobeo releasedoonoprobationosubjectotootheyofurnishingorequisiteobondsoinotheosumo ofoRs.30,000/-oeachowithooneosuretyoinotheolikeoamountoeach.oo

2.o o Asoperotheoprosecutionocase,otheocomplainant-PremoSinghohaso fourobrothers,ooneoRamoPaloSinghobeingoyoungestoofothem.ooAlloofothemo wereo residingo separately.o o Someo lando ofo Premo Singho ando hiso nephewo

MangatoSinghowasocomprisedoinoAbadioDehoofoVillageoRampurosituatedo nearoobaithakoofoaccusedoRoopoSingho(sinceodeceased)owhereocowdungo cakesohadobeenostackedoandocertainowoodenologsowereoalsoostored.ooOno

28.11.1990oatoabouto8.30oa.m.,oPremoSinghoandohisonephewoMangatoSingho asowelloasoSuniloKumarohadogoneotoodigoaofoundationoonotheosaidolandoforo raisingo ao boundaryo wall.o Wheno theyo startedo diggingo theo foundation,o accusedoJaspaloSingh,oRoopoSingh,oDesoRaj,oSurinderoSingh,oNepaloSingh,o KrishanoandoBabli,owithoNarinderoSingh,oarmedowitholathisoandogandasis,o cameo there.o o Theyo proclaimedo thato saido lando belongso too them.o o Sucho proclamationo ledo too exchangeo ofo words.o o Ino result,o Roopo Singho goto infuriatedoandoprovokedoothersotooteachoaolessonotooPremoSinghoetc.ooHeo inflictedoaolathioblowoonoheadoofoPremoSingh.ooHeothenogaveoitsoblowoonohiso forehead.ooThirdoblowothereofowasogivenoonoearoofoPremoSingh.ooAccusedo DesoRajogaveoaolathioblowoonorightoshoulderoofoPremoSinghowhereasotheo accusedoNarinderoSinghogaveolathioblowsoonohisorightoshoulderoasowelloaso hisorightoelbow.ooAccusedoSurinderoSinghogaveoaolathioblowoonohisorighto handoandoanotheroblowothereofoonohisoleftoankle.ooPremoSinghofellodown.oo Accusedo Roopo Singho gaveo ao lathio blowo ono hiso righto shouldero whereaso accusedo Nepalo Singho gaveo lathio blowso ono hiso ankleo ando lefto elbow.oo AccusedoJaspaloSinghogaveoaoreverse-sideoblowoofogandasioonorightohandoofo Premo Singh.o o Saido accusedo alsoo causedo injurieso too Sunilo Kumaro ando MangatoSingh.ooOnoraisingoalarm,ooneoSomoNathosonoofoSuratoSinghoando SuratoSinghoasowelloasoAtmaoRamocameotootheospot.ooTheyorescuedoPremo Singho fromo theo accused.o Aftero criminallyo intimidatingoPremo Singh,o theo accusedofledofromotheospotowithotheirorespectiveoweapons.oAllothreeoinjuredo

wereotakenotoohospital.ooOnogettingoinformationoaboutoadmissionoofoinjuredo tootheoCiviloHospital,oSIoJaioRamoetc.oreachedoCiviloHospital,oMullanaoando recordedostatementoofoPremoSingh.ooOnoitsobasis,oaoDDRoandothenoanoFIRo waso registeredo ono thato veryo date.o o Investigationo waso started.o o Medicalo evidenceo waso collected.o o Statementso ofo witnesseso wereo recorded.o o Ono completionoofoinvestigation,ofinaloreportounderoSectiono173oofotheoCodeoofo CriminaloProcedure,o1973o(forobrevity,o"1973oCode")owasoprepared.ooItowaso presentedobeforeotheoconcernedoAreaoMagistrate.oo

3.o o AfterocomplyingowithotheoprovisionsocontainedoinoSectiono207o ofotheo1973oCode,otheoLearnedoMagistrate,ovideoorderodatedo23.10.1998,o charge-sheetedotheoaccusedoforocommissionoofooffencesounderoSectiono148o asowelloasoSectionso323,o325,o506oreadowithoSectiono149oofotheoIndiano PenaloCode,o1860o(forobrevity,o"1860oCode").ooTheoaccusedopleadedonoto guiltyotootheochargesoandoclaimedotrial.ooo

4.o o Inoitsoevidence,oprosecutionoexaminedo6owitnesses.ooItoalsoo provedo o documentso referredo too byo theo Learnedo Courtso belowo ino theoo impugnedojudgment/s.o

5.o o Ino theiro respectiveo statementso undero Sectiono 313o ofo 1973o Code,otheoaccusedodeniedotheoincriminatingoevidenceoputotoothemowithoao pleaoofofalseoimplicationoonoaccountoofoprioroenmity.ooTheyoproducedo2o witnessesoinotheirodefence.oAfteroprovingodocumentsoMark-AoandoMark-A2,otheyoclosedotheiroevidence.o

6.o o Onoconclusionoofoevidence,oconcernedoAreaoMagistrateoheardo theo partiso ono meritso ofo theo case.o o Aftero sucho hearing,o ito convictedo theo

accusedounderoSectiono148oasowelloasoSectionso323,o325,o506oalloreadowitho Sectiono149oofo1860oCode.oooTheyowereoaccordinglyosentenced.o

7.o o Aggrievedoofotheosaidoconvictionoandoorderoofosentence,otheo accusedo preferredo ano appealo beforeo theo Sessionso Court.o Througho theo impugnedo judgmento datedo 27.07.2009,o theo Learnedo Appellateo Courto acceptedotheoappealoonobehalfoofoaccusedoNarinderoSinghoandoacquittedo him.ooHowever,oappealoagainstoconvictionoofotheoaccusedoJaspaloSingh,o Krishan,o Nepalo Singh,o Deso Rajo ando Surindero Singho waso dismissed.oo However,oaopleaoofograntoofoprobationoetc.oraisedoonobehalfoofotheosaido accusedo waso acceptedo ando theyo allo wereo orderedo too beo releasedo ono probationoforoaoperiodoofooneoyearowithoutosupervision.ooAccusedoJaspalo Singh,o Krishan,o Nepalo Singh,o Deso Rajo ando Surindero Singho wereo alsoo directedotoopayocompensationoofoRs.10,000/-otooPremoSingho(complainant).o AmountoofofineoofoRs.10,000/-oalreadyodepositedobyothemobeforeotheoTrialo Courto waso convertedo towardso costso ofo proceedingso ando amounto ofo fineo depositedo byo saido Narindero Singho waso orderedo too beo refundedo too him.oo AmountoofocompensationoorderedobyotheoAppellateoCourtowasodepositedobyo theosaidoaccused.ooPremoSinghohadoalsoofiledoaoRevisionoPetitionoagainstotheo judgmento passedo byo theo Learnedo Trialo Court.o o Ito waso alsoo accordinglyo disposedoof.ooAggrievedoofotheoimpugnedojudgmentodatedo27.07.2009,osaido PremoSinghoisoinorevisionobeforeothisoCourt.ooo

8.o o Io haveo heardo Shrio J.S.Cooner,o Advocateo foro theo petitioner,o ShrioKeshavoPratapoSingh,oAdvocate,ofororespondentoNos.1otoo6oandoShrio A.K.Khubbar,o Learnedo Addl.A.G.,o Haryana,o ono meritso ofo theo Revisiono Petition.oWithotheiroassistance,oIohaveoperusedophotocopiesoofotheorecord.o

9.o o Learnedo counselo foro theo petitionero hasoarguedothato accusedo Narindero Singho waso illegallyo ando erroneouslyo acquittedo througho theo impugnedojudgment.ooBenefitoofoprobationowasowronglyoandoillegallyogiveno tootheoremainingo5oaccused.ooTheyowereonotoatoalloentitledotoosuchobenefit.o Impugnedojudgment,otootheosaidoextent,odeservesotoobeosetoaside.ooAccusedo Narindero Singho deserveso too beo convicted/sentencedo aso orderedo byo theo LearnedoTrialoCourt.ooRemainingo5oaccusedowereorightlyoconvictedobyotheo LearnedoTrialoCourt.ooThey,otherefore,oshouldoundergootheoimprisonmento imposedobyoitoonothem.o

10.o o Onotheootherohand,olearnedocounselofororespondentoNos.1otoo6o haso arguedo thato ino respecto ofo acquittalo grantedo too respondento No.6,o impugnedojudgmentoisoclearoandocategoric.ooSentenceoofoprobationoimposedo onorespondentoNos.1otoo5ohasoelapsed.ooInoviewothereof,oquaothemonothingo moreo survives.o o Impugnedo judgmento iso self-speakingo callingo foro noo interferenceoinorevision.ooItohasotakenotheoevidenceoandolawoapplicableotoo theo caseo intoo consideration.o Thereo iso noo groundo too exerciseo revisionalo jurisdictiono againsto it.o o Heo hasoaccordinglyo prayedo foro dismissaloofo theo RevisionoPetition.ooInosupportoofohisoarguments,oheohasoreliedouponotheo reporto"JitenderoVs.oMaanoSingho&oanother"o2025oNCPHHCo9202oando aojudgmentodatedo10.07.2025orenderedoinoCriminaloRevisionoNo.1413-2010otitledo"GaneshoDuttoKaushikoVs.oStateoofoHaryanao&oanother.ooo

11.o o LearnedoAddl.oAdvocateoGeneraloagreesothatoprobationoperiodo forowhicho5oaccusedowereosentencedohasoexpired.o

12.o o Afterosuchohearingoandoperusal,oIomayostateothatothroughotheo impugnedojudgmentodatedo27.07.2009,otheoaccusedoNarinderoSinghowaso

acquittedoofotheochargesoframedoagainstohimoinotheocaseoinoquestion.ooIno viewoofosuchoacquittal,oifotheoStateowasoaggrievedoofotheosame,oinotermsoofo Sectiono 378(1)o ofo theo 1973o Code,o ano appealo waso maintainable.o o Saidooooo sub-sectionoisoreproducedoasounder:-o "S.o378ooAppealoinocaseoofoacquittaloo:-o

1.e SaveoasootherwiseoprovidedoinoSub-Sectiono(2)oandosubjecto tootheoprovisionsoofoSub-Sectionso(3)oando(5),oo

(a)e theoDistrictoMagistrateomay,oinoanyocase,odirectotheo PublicoProsecutorotoopresentoanoappealotootheoCourto ofoSessionofromoanoorderoofoacquittalopassedobyoao Magistrateo ino respecto ofo ao cognizableo ando non-bailableooffence;

(b)etheoStateoGovernmentomay,oinoanyocase,odirectotheo PublicoProsecutorotoopresentoanoappealotootheoHigho Courto fromo ano originalo oro appellateo ordero ofo ano acquittalo passedo byo anyo Courto othero thano ao Higho Courto[notobeingoanoorderounderoclauseo(a)ooroano orderoofoacquittalopassedobyotheoCourtoofoSessionoino revision."

13.o o Ao perusalo ofo aboveo reproducedo provisiono showso thato ano appealobyotheoStateoofoHaryanaoonlyowasomaintainableoagainstoaojudgmento ofoacquittalopassedoinofavouroofoaccusedoifosuchojudgmentowasorenderedo prioro too 31.12.2009.o o Ino theo presento case,o theo impugnedo judgmento waso renderedoono27.07.2009.ooTherefore,oanoappealothereagainstoatotheoinstanceo

ofotheocomplainantowasonotomaintainable.oTheocomplainantoPremoSinghohaso thereforeorightlyofiledoaorevisionopetitionoagainstotheosame.o

14.o o IomayoalsoostateothatorevisionalopowersoofothisoCourtocanobeo exercisedoinotermsoofoSectiono401oofotheo1973oCode.oTherefore,opresento revisionohasotoobeodealtowithinotheoparametersocontainedoinotheosaidosection.oo Saidosectionoisothereforeoreproducedoasounder:-o "401.oHighoCourt'sopowersooforevision.—o

(1)oInotheocaseoofoanyoproceedingotheorecordoofowhichohaso beeno calledo foro byo itselfo oro whicho otherwiseo comeso too itso knowledge,otheoHighoCourtomay,oinoitsodiscretion,oexerciseoanyo ofotheopowersoconferredoonoaoCourtoofoAppealobyosectionso386,o 389,o390oando391ooroonoaoCourtoofoSessionobyosectiono307,o and,owhenotheoJudgesocomposingotheoCourtoofoRevisionoareo equallyodividedoinoopinion,otheocaseoshallobeodisposedoofoinotheo manneroprovidedobyosectiono392.o

(2)oNooorderounderothisosectionoshallobeomadeotootheoprejudiceo ofo theo accusedo oro othero persono unlesso heo haso hado ano opportunityoofobeingoheardoeitheropersonallyoorobyopleaderoino hisoownodefence.o

(3)oNothingo ino thisosectionoshallo beodeemedotoo authoriseo ao Higho Courto too converto ao findingo ofo acquittalo intoo oneo ofo conviction.o

(4)oWhereounderothisoCodeoanoappealoliesoandonooappealoiso brought,o noo proceedingo byo wayo ofo revisiono shallo beo

entertainedo ato theo instanceo ofo theo partyo whoo couldo haveo appealed.o

(5)oWhereounderothisoCodeoanoappealoliesobutoanoapplicationo fororevisionohasobeenomadeotootheoHighoCourtobyoanyopersono ando theo Higho Courto iso satisfiedo thato sucho applicationo waso madeounderotheoerroneousobeliefothatonooappealoliesotheretoo andothatoitoisonecessaryoinotheointerestsoofoJusticeosootoodo,otheo Higho Courto mayo treato theo applicationo foro revisiono aso ao petitionoofoappealoandodealowithotheosameoaccordingly."o

15.o o IomayoalsoostateothatoinotermsoofoSectiono401(3)oofo1973oCode,o thisoCourtocannotoconvertoaofindingoofoacquittalointoooneoofoconviction.oIno respectoofoscopeooforevisionalopowersoofoaoHighoCourt,oaothreeoJudgeoBencho ofo Hon'bleo theo Supremeo Court,o ino theo reporto "Pakalapatio Narayanao Gajapathio Rajuo &o otherso Vs.o Bonapallio Pedao Appaduo &o another",o

(1975)o4oSCCo477,oobservedoasounder:-o "3.o Sectiono 439o (1)o ofo theo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedureo providesothatoinoexerciseooforevisionalojurisdiction,otheoHigho Courtomayoexerciseoanyoofotheopowersoconferredoonoaocourtoofo appeal.o Thiso provisiono iso madeo expresslyo subjecto too sub-sectiono(4)oofoSectiono439ounderowhichonothingocontainedoino theo sectiono shallo beo deemedo too authoriseo ao Higho Courto too convertoaofindingoofoacquittalointoooneoofoconviction.oSectiono 439ohasobeenointerpretedoinoseveralodecisionsoofothisoCourto whicho haveo takeno theo viewo thato theo revisionalo jurisdiction,o whenoinvokedobyoaoprivateocomplainantoagainstoanoorderoofo

acquittal,ooughtonototoobeoexercisedolightlyoandothatoitocanobeo exercisedo onlyo ino exceptionalo caseso whereo theo interestso ofo publico justiceo requireo interferenceo foro theo correctiono ofo ao manifestoillegalityoorotheopreventionoofoaogrossomiscarriageoofo justice.(SeeoSatyendraoNathoDuttaov.oRamoNarain,o(1975)o3o SCCo398;oAkaluoAhirov.oRamdeooRam,o(1974)o1oSCRo130;o ChangantioKotaiahov.oGoginonioVenkateshwaraoRao,o(1973)o 3oSCRo867.oItoisoclearofromotheseodecisionsothatotheorevisionalo jurisdictiono cannoto beo invokedo merelyo becauseo theo lowero courtohasonotoappreciatedotheoevidenceoproperly.oTheoHigho Courtohasoinoitsojudgmentoreferredotootheo decisionsoofo thiso Courtobutoinoapplyingothoseodecisionsoitohasotransgressedotheo limitsoofoitsorevisionalopowers."o

16.o o InorespectoofoscopeooforevisionalopowersoofoaoHighoCourt,oao threeo Judgeo Benchoofo Hon'bleo theo Supremeo Court,o inotheo reporto"Dulio Chando Vs.o Delhio Administration",o (1975)o 4o SCCo 649,o observedo aso under:-o "4.o…...oNow,otheojurisdictionoofotheoHighoCourtoinoaoCriminalo Revisiono Applicationo iso severallyo restrictedo ando ito cannoto embarkouponoreappreciationoofotheoevidence,obutoevenoso,otheo learnedo singleo Judgeo ofo theo Higho Courto whoo heardo theo revisiono application,o examinedo theo evidenceo afresho ato theo instanceoofotheoappellant.oThisowas,ohowever,oofonooavail,oaso theolearnedosingleoJudgeofoundothatotheoconclusionoreachedobyo theo lowero Courtso thato theo appellanto waso guiltyo ofo grosso

negligence,owasocorrectoandothereowasonooreasonotoointerfereo withotheoconvictionoofotheoappellant.o…..oo

5.o…..TheoHighoCourtoinorevisionowasoexercisingosupervisoryo jurisdictiono ofo ao restrictedo natureo and,o therefore,o ito wouldo haveobeenojustifiedoinorefusingotoore-appreciateotheoevidenceo forotheopurposeoofodeterminingowhetherotheoconcurrentofindingo ofofactoreachedobyotheolearnedoMagistrateoandotheolearnedo AdditionaloSessionsoJudgeowasocorrect.oButoevenoso,otheoHigho Courtoreviewedotheoevidenceopresumablyoforotheopurposeoofo satisfyingo itselfo thato thereo waso evidenceo ino supporto ofo theo findingoofofactoreachedobyotheotwoosubordinateocourtsoandothato theo findingo ofo facto waso noto unreasonableo oro perverse.o Theo HighoCourtocameotootheoconclusionothatotheoevidenceoclearlyo establishedo thato theo deatho ofo theo deceasedo waso causedo ono accountoofotheonegligentodrivingoofotheobusobyotheoappellant.o …..".oo

17.ooo o InorespectooforevisionalopowersoofoaoHighoCourtounderoSectiono 439oofoCodeoofoCriminaloProcedure,o1898o(forobrevityo"1898oCode"),oao threeo Judgeo Bencho ofo Hon'bleo theo Supremeo Court,o ino theo reporto "K.ChinnaswamyoReddyoVs.oStateoofoA.P."oAIRo1962oSCo1788owhileo referringotooitsotwooearlierodecisions,oobservedoasounder:-o "ItoisotrueothatoitoisoopenotooaoHighoCourtoinorevisionotooseto asideoanoorderoofoacquittaloevenoatotheoinstanceoofoprivateo parties,othoughotheoStateomayonotohaveothoughtofitotooappeal;o butothisojurisdictionoshouldoinoouroopinionobeoexercisedobyotheo

Higho Courto onlyo ino exceptionalo cases,o wheno thereo iso someo glaringodefectoinotheoprocedureoorothereoisoaomanifestoerroroono aopointoofolawoandoconsequentlyothereohasobeenoaoflagranto miscarriageoofojustice.oSub-sectiono(4)oofoSectiono439oforbidso aoHighoCourtofromoconvertingoaofindingoofoacquittalointoooneo ofoconvictionoandothatomakesoitoallotheomoreoincumbentoonotheo Higho Courto too seeo thato ito doeso noto converto theo findingo ofo acquittalo intoo oneo ofo convictiono byo theo indirecto methodo ofo orderingo retrial,o wheno ito cannoto itselfo directlyo converto ao findingoofoacquittalointooaofindingoofoconviction.oThisoplaceso limitationso ono theo powero ofo theo Higho Courto too seto asideo ao findingoofoacquittaloinorevisionoandoitoisoonlyoinoexceptionalo casesothatothisopoweroshouldobeoexercised.oItoisonotopossibleotoo layodownotheocriteriaoforodeterminingosuchoexceptionalocaseso whicho wouldo covero allo contingencies.o Weo mayo howevero indicateosomeocasesoofothisokind,owhichowouldoinoouroopiniono justifyo theo Higho Courto ino interferingo witho ao findingo ofo acquittalo ino revision.o Theseo caseso mayo be:o whereo theo trialo courtohasonoojurisdictionotootryotheocaseobutohasostilloacquittedo theoaccused,oorowhereotheotrialocourtohasowronglyoshutoouto evidenceowhichotheoprosecutionowishedotooproduce,oorowhereo theo appealo courto haso wronglyo heldo evidence.whicho waso admittedo byo theo trialo courto too beo inadmissible,o oro whereo materialo evidenceo haso beeno overlookedo eithero byo theo trialo courtoorobyotheoappealocourt,oorowhereotheoacquittaloisobasedo

onoaocompoundingoofotheooffence,owhichoisoinvalidounderotheo law.oTheseoandootherocasesoofosimilaronatureocanoproperlyobeo heldotoobeocasesoofoexceptionalonature,owhereotheoHighoCourto cano justifiablyointerfereo witho ano ordero ofo acquittal;o andoino suchoaocaseoitoisoobviousothatoitocannotobeosaidothatotheoHigho Courtowasodoingoindirectlyowhatoitocouldonotodoodirectlyoino viewoofotheoprovisionsoofoa.o439o(4).oWeohaveothereforeotooseeo whetherotheoordero'ofotheoHighoCourtosettingoasideotheoordero ofoacquittaloinothisocaseocanobeoupheldoonotheseoprinciples."o

18.o o InorespectooforevisionalopowersoofoaoHighoCourt,oaothreeoJudgeo BenchoofoHon'bleotheoSupremeoCourt,oinotheoreporto"AyodhyaoDubeo&o othersoVs.oRamoSumeroSingh",o1981o(Supp)oSCCo83,owhileoreferringotoo K.ChinnaswamyoReddy'soreporto(supra),oobservedoasounder:-oo "2.oInoouroviewotheoHighoCourtohasogivenoadequateoreasonso forointerferingowithotheoacquittaloandoorderingoaoretrialoofotheo appellants.oWeomayoaddothatotheoHighoCourtoalsooexpressedo theo viewo thato theo instanceso mentionedo byo thiso Courto ino ChinnaswamyovsoStateoofoAndhraoPradeshoAIR.o1962oS.C.o 1978oasojustifyingointerferenceowithoordersoofoacquittaloinotheo exerciseo ofo revisionalo powerso wereo illustrativeo ando noto exhaustive.oWeoagreeowithotheoviewoexpressedobyotheoHigho Courto ando weo onlyo wisho too sayo thato theo Criminalo Justiceo Systemodoesonotoadmitoofo'pigeon-holing.'.oLifeoandotheoLawo doonotofalloneatlyointooslots.oWhenoaoCourtostartsolayingodowno rulesoenumeratedo(1),o(2),o(3),o(4)ooro(a),o(b),o(c),o(d),oitoiso

arran in o foro itse$fo trapso ando pitfa$$s.o %ate ories,o c$assificationso ando co!part!ents,o whicho statuteo doeso noto !ention,oa$$otendotoo!atieo$awoB$essof$e1ib$e,o$essosensib$eoando $essojust.=o

13.o o Anorespectoofosuchopo%ers"oaot%ooJudgeo@enchoofotionEbleotheo Supremeo(ourt"oinotheoreporto0J/*/2/oD/.o3%.oH.S.C5)@(5/&=6,o(1882)o4o SCCo "7"oobser)edoasounder:-o "130. The object of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 is to confer power upon superior criminal Courts - a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction - in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case, anxious attention being given to the said facts and circumstances which vary greatly from case to case.

¶131xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶132The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and

substantialojusticeoforotheoadministrationoofowhichoaloneotheo Courtsoexist.oTheopowersopossessedobyotheoHighoCourtoundero Sectiono482oofotheoCodeoareoveryowideoandotheoveryoplenitudeo ofotheopowerorequiresogreatocautionoinoitsoexercise.oCourtso musto beo carefulo too seeo thato itso decisiono ino exerciseo ofo thiso poweroisobasedoonosoundoprinciples."o

20.o o Whileo quotingo observationso madeo ino Janatao Dal'so reporto (supra)o witho approval,o ao threeo Judgeo Bencho ofo Hon'bleo theo Supremeo Court,o ino theo reporto "T.N.Dhakkalo Vs.o Jameso Basnetto &o another",o

(2001)o10oSCCo419,ooobservedoasounder:-o "9.oWeoareoinoagreementowithotheoaboveoexpositionoofolaw.oWeo areoofotheoopinionothatothoughotheoHighoCourtohasorevisionalo jurisdictionounderoSectiono401oofotheoCodeoandocanoexerciseo itsodiscretionaryojurisdictionotoocorrectomiscarriageoofojustice,o butowhetherooronot,othereoisojustificationoforotheoexerciseoofo thatodiscretionaryojurisdictionowouldodependouponotheofactso andocircumstancesoofoeachocase.ooTheocontrollingopoweroofotheo Higho Courto undero Sectiono 401o ofo theo Codeo beingo discretionaryoisorequiredotoobeoexercisedoonlyoinotheointeresto ofojustice,ohavingoregardotooallotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofo eachoparticularocaseoandonotomechanically."o

21.o o InorespectooforevisionalojurisdictionoofoaoHighoCourt,oaotwoo Judgeo Bencho ofo Hon'bleo theo Supremeo Court,o ino theo reporto "Stateo ofo KeralaoVs.oPuttumanaoIllathoJathavedanoNamboodiri",o(1999)o2oSCCo 452,oobservedoasounder:-o

"HavingoexaminedotheoimpugnedoJudgmentoofotheoHighoCourto andobearingoinomindotheocontentionsoraisedobyotheolearnedo counseloforotheoparties,oweohaveonoohesitationotoocomeotootheo conclusiono thato ino theo caseo ino hand,o theo Higho Courto haso exceededo itso revisionalo jurisdiction.o Ino Itso revisionalo jurisdiction,o theo Higho Courto cano callo foro ando examineo theo recordoofoanyoproceedingsoforotheopurposeoofosatisfyingoitselfo aso too theo correctness,o legalityo oro proprietyo ofo anyo finding,o sentenceooroorder.oInootherowords,otheojurisdictionoisooneoofo Supervisoryo Jurisdictiono exercisedo byo theo Higho Courto foro correctingo miscarriageo ofo justice.o Buto theo saido revisionalo powero cannoto beo equatedo witho theo powero ofo ano Appellateo Courto noro cano ito beo treatedo eveno aso ao secondo Appellateo Jurisdiction.o Ordinarily,o therefore,o ito wouldo noto beo appropriateoforotheoHighoCourtotoore-appreciateotheoevidenceo ando comeo too itso owno conclusiono ono theo sameo wheno theo evidenceohasoalreadyobeenoappreciatedobyotheoMagistrateoaso wello aso theo Sessionso Judgeo ino appeal,o unlesso anyo glaringo featureo iso broughto too theo noticeo ofo theo Higho Courto whicho wouldootherwiseotentamountotoogrossomiscarriageoofojustice."o

22.o o Observationso madeo ino Dulio Chand'so reporto (supra)o ando thoseomadeoinoaoreporto"StateoofoOrissaoVS.oNakulaoSahu",o(1979)o1o SCCo328oasowelloasoPuttumanaoIllath'soreporto(supra)owereoapprovedobyo aothreeoJudgeoBenchoofoHon'bleotheoSupremeoCourtoinotheoreporto"Rajo KumaroVs.oStateoofoHimachaloPradesh",o(2008)o11oSCCo76.o

¶23Applying the said observations to the present case, I may state that the Appellate Court, while dealing with the case against the accused Narinder Singh, has categorically observed that the said accused has taken a specific stand in his statement under Section 313 of 1973 Code that he was on duty at Ramgarh, Tehsil Panchkula, on that date. It also observes that in support of his such contention, the said accused examined 2 witnesses in his defence. DW1 Sandeep Kumar presented a report of the relevant period and deposed that the said accused had issued some record to one Nathu on the date of the occurrence in question i.e. 28.11.1990. It further records that the said Nathu was examined as DW2 who identified the accused Narinder Singh and stated that the said accused issued a Fard to him on the said date at 9.00 a.m. It also mentions that in his cross-examination, PW1 Prem Singh has stated that the said accused lives at Panchkula. After recording that the said accused, on the date of occurrence in question, was stated to be at a distance of 50 kms from the place of occurrence, the Appellate Court then observed that it is still inclined to accept plea of absence of the accused Narinder Singh at the spot and to give him benefit of doubt because his brother Babli had also been named by the prosecution not only before the police but also in the Court and a specific role had been assigned to him. It further mentions that it was done so despite the fact that the accused Babli was found present on that date in Leh since he was employed/posted in ITBP. The impugned judgment of the Appellate Court also mentions that the occurrence in question had taken all of a sudden and was not pre-planned even as per the case set-forth by the prosecution and therefore presence of

the accused Narinder Singh at the spot, in such circumstances, becomes doubtful. By observing so in favour of the said accused, the Appellate Court gave him the benefit of doubt and accepted his appeal by acquitting him. The above referred to conclusion/s arrived at by the Learned Appellate Court, in the facts/circumstances of the present case, are certainly possible on the basis of the evidence on record and are reasonable conclusion/s. Even if another reasonable conclusion may have been arrived in the case in question against the said accused, this Court, in a revision petition against acquittal, will not disturb a finding of acquittal on the basis of possibility of two conclusions. By earning an acquittal through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, the said accused has double presumption of innocence in his favour. $C.o o Abo)eostatedoreasoning#discussionosho%sothatotheoimpugnedo judgmentohasonotocausedoanyomiscarriageoofojustice.ooAtohasoanalysedotheo e)idenceoinodetailotooac9uitotheoaccusedo-arinderoSingh.ooReappreciationoofo e)idenceo iso noto permissibleo %hileo e8ercisingo ao re)isionalo jurisdiction.oo Ampugnedo judgmento iso noto per)erseo oro unreasonable.o Ao re)isionalo jurisdictionocannotobeoe8ercisedolightlyoandoratherohasotoobeoe8ercisedoino e8ceptionalocaseso%hereotheointerestoofopublicojusticeore9uireointerferenceo forocorrectionoofoaomanifestoillegalityooropre)entionoofogrossomiscarriageoofo justice.ooAore)isionalojurisdictionoisosuper)isoryoinonatureoandothereforeoiso restrictedo jurisdiction.o 1heo caseo ino 9uestiono alsoo doeso noto 9ualifyo theo ingredientso laido do%no ino :.C51**/%@/9=o R$((=C%o &$-)&2o (%+-&/)o 9uotedo%ithoappro)aloinoA=)(5=/oD+B$C%o&$-)&2o(%+-&/)oforoe8erciseoofo

re)isionalojurisdictionoagainstotheoimpugnedojudgment.ooAothereforeofindonoo groundotooe8erciseosuchojurisdictionoagainstoit.

¶25Next limb of the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Learned Appellate Court has illegally granted benefit of probation to the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh (respondent Nos.1 to 5). However, as against his such argument, learned counsel for the accused has relied upon Jitender's report (supra) and Ganesh Dutt Kaushik's judgment (supra) to contend that elapsing of probation period imposed on the accused renders challenge to grant of probation as infructuous. The said reports are by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. No report contrary to the report/judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused has been cited before me. The impugned judgment was passed by the Learned Appellate Court on 27.07.2009. Through the same, it observed as under:- "The accused have been facing the ordeal of trial for the last more than 19 years. They are not previous convicts and are first offenders. They are sole bread earners of their families. The appellants had been held guilty of having committed an offence under Sections 148/323/325 read with section 149 and 506 of IPC, which is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence being covered under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further in view of the ratio laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and others 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 670, I am of the opinion that

the ends of justice would be met if the appellants/accused are released on probation. Accordingly the appellants are ordered to be released on probation subject to their furnishing requisite bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each undertaking therein that the appellants shall maintain peace and harmony for a period of one year and in case during this period they commit any offence the sentence imposed by the learned trial court will revive. The probation will be without supervision. It is further ordered that the appellants namely Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Desh Raj and Surinder Singh shall pay a compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant/injured. The amount of fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2000/- by each appellant) already deposited by the appellants Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Desh Raj and Surinder Singh in the trial court is converted towards the costs of proceedings......"

¶26A perusal of the above-reproduced observations shows that the said accused were released on probation for a period of one year. Today, we are running in the year 2026. The said period of probation, therefore, has elapsed. In view thereof, Jitender's report (supra) and Ganesh Dutt Kaushik's judgment (supra) are fully applicable to the case in question in respect of expiry of probation period imposed on the above-stated accused. The argument/s of learned counsel for the petitioner, in that regard, therefore, are rejected. It being so, the present

revision petition, qua the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh, has been rendered infructuous.

¶27For the reasoning given and discussion made in preceding portion of the present judgment, the present revision petition against the accused Narinder Singh is dismissed whereas it is disposed off as infructuous against the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh (respondent Nos.1 to 5). All interim application/s also stand disposed of. o o o o "." .2"2!o o o o oooooooooo(RAMESHoCHANDERoDIMRI)o Sai$esho o o o o o ooooooooooooJUDGEo o o ?hetherospea,ing#reasonedo:o Feso o o o?hetheroReportableo:o Feso o o