Hukam Chand vs State of U.P. and Others

M.C. Jain, J.—I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Apul Misra, learned Counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 5.

This revision has been filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal in a murder case recorded by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 17.11.1997 in S.T. No. 262 of 1995. Opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were tried in the said sessions trial.

The case involved the murder of one Inder Singh on 22.1.1993 at about 11.30 p.m. at his Kolhu in village Kharar, P.S. Phugana. district Muzaffarnagar. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has argued that there was strong notice on the part of opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 to commit the murder of Inder Singh and there was also testimony of an eye-witness P.W. 3 Sonu. On the other hand, it is argued for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 that there was no evidence whatsoever to connect them with the said crime : that P.W. 3 Sonu was not at all a reliable witness and there was also no source of light at the spot at the time of alleged murder.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and have gone through the evidence adduced in the case as contained in the record of the lower court which has been summoned. It is significant to point out that no body had been named as culprit in the F.I.R. made by the revisionist Hukam Chand which was made on 23.1.1993 at 5 a.m. He himself was not an eye-witness. The name of P.W. 3 Sonu did not figure in the F.I.R. It was at a late stage after seven days that he named the present opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 as being the culprits of this crime in his statement to the Investigating Officer. There was no corroboration of his testimony. He stated before the Court that he had gone with the dead body of Inder Singh deceased. This fact was not disclosed by him to the Investigating Officer. Moreover, if he had gone with the dead body of the deceased Inder Singh, post mortem over which was conducted on 23.1.1993 at 3.45 p.m., then he would have named opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 as culprits then and there. The motive, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. I am of the opinion that, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in not placing reliance on the testimony of only so-called eyewitness P.W. 3 Sonu. The finding of acquittal recorded by him does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness.

It has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Singh Khuman Singh and Aer. XXXVII 1998 ACC 810 (SC) that the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convicted that the accused deserves conviction.

Applying the above yardstick, I do not find any ground to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

The revision, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. Return the record of the lower court.