Kulwant Singh vs State of Punjab and others

This revision petition has been filed against judgment dated

14.7.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Amritsar vide which the said Court had accepted the appeal filed against

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2013 passed by

the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala and had acquitted the

accused of the charge framed against him.

The revision - petitioner prays that the revision petition be

accepted, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Amritsar be set aside and the judgment passed by Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala be upheld, resultantly accused - respondents

No.2 to 8 be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Kulwant

Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, resident of village Gaggomahal, Tehsil

Ajnala, District Amritsar had filed a criminal complaint under Sections

379, 427, 447, 506 IPC impleading Sukha Singh, Kashmir Singh, Wassan

Singh, Satnam Singh, Hardev Singh, Mukhtar Singh, Tara Chand and

Mota Singh, all residents of village Gaggomahal, Tehsil Ajnala, District

Amritsar as accused.

Inter alia, in the complaint, he has alleged that he had carved

out a fishery pond in his land measuring 7 Kanals 16 Marlas having

khasra Nos. 276(1-15), 22//2/2(0-3), 2/3(0-5), 2/5(0-6), 2/6(0-5), 2/7(0-5),

2/8(0-6), 2/9(1-17), 22/2/1(2-9), 2/4(0-5), Khewat Khatauni No.168/245-

249 as per jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 situated at village

Gaggomahal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar and had put fish seed in the

pond which he purchased from Fishery Department, Amritsar about 8-9

months earlier to filing of the complaint; that on the intervening night of

24/25.2.2008, all the accused impleaded in the complaint carrying spades

came to his fishery farm and started demolishing its boundary wall,

resultantly, the water got drained out, the fish were picked up by accused

and taken along with them by putting those in gunny bags. As a result of

said wrongful acts of the accused, fish farm of complainant was

completely destroyed. The incident was witnessed by complainant and his

son Nishan Singh, besides, Amrik Singh, who had arrived at the spot after

hearing noises. On seeing them, accused rather threatened to kill them in

case they stopped them from demolishing the fish farm. According to the

complainant, he along with his son had approached police of Police Post

Gaggomahal for registration of FIR against the accused persons. Initially,

the police refused to register the FIR but when the complainant

approached higher police officers then FIR No.27 dated 27.2.2008 for the

offences under Sections 427 / 447 IPC was registered against the accused at

Police Station Ramdas. However, the police did not add offences under

Section 379 and 506 IPC, though the accused had demolished the fish

pond of complainant, committed theft of fish causing him loss to the tune

of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and had also threatened him. FIR was got

cancelled by police from Illaqa Magistrate without consent of

complainant, as such complainant filed a criminal complaint in the Court

of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala.

After recording preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate

summoned the accused to face trial under Sections 379, 427, 447 and 506

IPC. The accused accordingly put in appearance in the Court.

After recording pre-charge evidence and then finding that

charge for offences under Sections 379, 427, 447 and 506 IPC was

disclosed against the accused, they were charge-sheeted accordingly, to

which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After framing of charge in after charge evidence complainant

got his statement recorded as CW1 narrating the incident as alleged in the

complaint. CW2 Amrik Singh and CW3 Nishan Singh were also cross-

examined during after charge evidence and thereafter, the case was fixed

for recording statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C ., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against

such accused were put to them but they denied the allegations contending

that they are innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. The

accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing arguments, learned trial Court had convicted

and sentenced the accused as mentioned above, which left them aggrieved

and they have filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence, which

has been accepted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Amritsar, resultantly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala was set aside and accused

were acquitted of the charge framed against them.

Now the complainant is before this Court by way of filing the

present revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the records and I find that there is no merit in the revision

petition.

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with

High Court''s power of revision. It is a settled law that the revisional

jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the

interference is required for correction of manifest illegality or prevention

of gross miscarriage of justice. Here, the instant case does not come

within four corners of the said provision. The First Appellate Court has

given valid and logical reasoning while coming to the conclusion that trial

Court had fallen error in convicting the accused when the facts and

circumstances and evidence brought on file did not warrant that. The First

Appellate Court has properly appraised the evidence and correctly

interpreted the law while coming to the conclusion that version of

complainant lack plausibility and does not inspire confidence inasmuch as

complainant had not produced any documentary evidence in the form of

revenue record etc. to show that fish farm was ever created by him in his

land. Secondly, the FIR which was lodged by the complainant with Police

Station Ramdas i.e. FIR No.27 dated 27.2.2008 for the offences under

Sections 427 / 447 IPC has since been cancelled by the police and the

cancellation report has been accepted by the Court of Area Magistrate on

2.10.2009. Thirdly, the presence at the spot of PWs is doubtful and no

person from nearby area had reached the spot and that photographs of

demolished fish farm had not been proved, as such the First Appellate

Court was justified in accepting the appeal and dismissing the complaint.

There is no merit in the revision petition and the same stands

dismissed accordingly.