Charanjit Kaur vs Sadhu Singh

M.L. Singhal, J.

In case FIR No. 38 dated 30.3.1992 registered under Section 326/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Baghapurana against Sadhu Singh and others, vide order dated 9.1.1996, Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Moga convicted Sadhu Singh and others under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, he convicted Balbir Singh under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, he convicted Sadhu Singh, Buta Singh, Jaspal Singh alias Jassa and Pappu alias Ranjit under Section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code, he convicted Buta Singh under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he convicted Sadhu Singh, Balbir Singh, Jaspal Singh and Pappu alias Ranjit Singh under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to under go imprisonment as follows :

Balbir Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to under go RI for three months under Section 326 IPC while others to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/ each or in default to undergo R.I. for three months each for offence under Section 326/149 IPC.

Buta Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine of Rs. 300/ or in default to further RI for two months for an offence under Section 324 IPC while others to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 300/ each or in default to further RI for two months for the offence under Section 324/149 IPC.

All to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 148 IPC.

They appealed to the Court of Session and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot accepted their appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon them by the learned Magistrate and acquitted them vide order dated 18.10.1996.

Smt. Charanjit Kaurpetitioner has come up in revision to this Court. Through this revision, she has challenged their acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and has prayed that the judgment/order convicting and sentencing the accused passed by the learned Magistrate be restored.

I have heard learned counsel for Smt. Charanjit Kaurrevision petitioner, learned counsel for Sadhu Singh and othersrespondents No. 1 to 5 and Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

In my opinion there has been no misappreciation of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. He has considered every facet of the prosecution and has reached the conclusion that Sadhu Singh etc. have been unjustifiably convicted and they be acquitted. There are injuries on the person of Sadhu Singh. Charanjit Kaur and Bharpur Kaur gave no explanation for the injuries of Sadhu Singh. So far as Charanjit Kuar and Bharpur Kaur are concerned, Dr. Kulwant Kaur stated that the injuries of Charanjit Kaur are on the nonvital parts of the body and the possibility of those injuries being selfsuffered cannot be ruled out. As regards Bharpur Kaur, Dr. Kulwant Kaur stated that they are on the nonvital parts of the body and the possibility of injuries No. 2 to 4 being selfsuffered could not be ruled out. Injury No. 1 on the right thumb of Bharpur Kaur is a minor fracture. It may be mentioned here that Charanjit Kaur and Bharpur Kaur received injuries only on the finger of their right hand. Bharpur Kaur received injuries on the lateral surface of right forearm but about this injury, Dr. Kulwant Kaur stated that this injury could be selfsuffered.

As against them, there was an incised wound on the scalp starting from anterior hair line extending upwards and to left 2.5 cm from mid line, 15 cms from tragus of left ear on the person of Sadhu Singh. Fresh bleeding was present. About this injury Dr. Kulwant Kaur stated that this injury could not be the result of friendly hand and it could not be selfsuffered more particularly when it was caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1 on the person of Sadhu Singh being on the vital part of the body could not be self suffered.

Only lalkara was attributed to Pappu alias Ranjit. There is no attribution to him. Sadhu Singh and Jaspal Singh did not cause any injury. Injuries have been attributed to Buta Singh and Balbir Singh alone. To Sadhu Singh and Jaspal Singh, injuries to the other sisters of Charanjit Kaur and Bharpur Kaur were attributed, but they were not medically examined. For the injuries of Sadhu Singh, Charanjit Kuar and her sisters were challaned. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, rightly observed that nonexplanation of the injuries of Sadhu Singh by the prosecution is a serious flaw going to the root of the prosecution case. Nonexplanation of injuries of Sadhu Singh would shroud the genesis of the occurrence in mystery. PWs may have spoken the truth but not the whole truth. They have described the role of Sadhu Singh etc. but not their own role. As per Charanjit Kaur, Bharpur Kaur and Karamjit Kaur PWs they showed blood smeared clothes to the police but the police did not take into possession the same. ASI Harpreet Singh, however, stated that he did not notice any blood stained earth at the spot nor was he shown any blood stained clothes.

The State has not preferred any appeal against this order of acquittal. It is a revision filed by Charanjit Kaurcomplainant against the order of acquittal. The scope of revision is very limited. In revision, this Court will interfere only when there is grave error on the part of the Court below in the appreciation of evidence, leading to the miscarriage of justice, as for instance, if the Court below has considered inadmissible/irrelevant evidence and has ignored admissible/relevant and vital evidence and has passed an order of acquittal this court may interfere. In this case acquittal has been ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge, after considering all the pros and cons of the case.

So, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.