Ram Phal Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana and ors.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Prabhu Dayal respondent No. 2 was tried for offences under Sections 307/353/332/186 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act for giving knife injuries to Sub Inspector Ram Phal with the intention of causing his death and preventing and deterring him from discharging his official duties as a public servant on 10.1.1986 in the area of Palwal town. After trial he was acquitted of all the charges but was convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 2000/ for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year by the Additional Sessions Judge II Faridabad vide his judgment dated 25.11.1986. Aggrieved by this judgment, Ram Phal complainant filed the present Revision Petition. The averments made in the petition are that the acquittal under Sections 323/353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code was not proper and was opposed to law. The respondent had committed all these offences and was liable to be punished for the same.

No appeal or revision was filed by the state against the acquittal of respondent No. 2 for the various offences.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of respondent No. 2 that Revision Petition by the complainant was not competent as again acquittal of the respondent for various offences and it was barred under Sub Section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but I find that this contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. In the instant case the State could file an appeal against acquittal of respondent No. 2 for various offences but no appeal had been filed. The complainant could not prefer an appeal so he filed the Revision Petition. Where a Revision Petition by a private complainant has been filed, the powers of the High Court under this Section are exactly the same as the powers of a court of appeal conferred by Sections 386 to 391 and High Court can order the accused to be retired. The retrial is to be ordered if there is a case of nonrecording of evidence, or improper recording of inadmissible evidence. The Revision Petition is, therefore, not liable to fail simply on the ground that it is not maintainable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that injured in the case suffered seven injuries which were mostly on his head, face and neck. The injuries were caused with a knife and injury No. 6 which was a stab wound on the left clavicle could prove fatal without immediate medical treatment as per opinion of the doctor. So the respondent was wrongly convicted for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. I find that this submission of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner does not hold good as none of the injuries found on the person of the Revision Petitioner was grievous any an injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of narute. The injuries were simple in nature. The occurrence took place at 4.30 P.M. and condition of the injured was normal at 7.45 P.M. when his statement was recorded. The learned Trial Court rightly appraised the evidence and held respondent No. 2 as guilty of an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. There was no error on a point of law or in appraisal of the evidence. In view of the nature of the offence the respondent was released on probation. The occurrence took long ago. There is thus no justification for interfering with the impugned order. The Revision Petition is berefit of any merit and the same is dismissed.