Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhman Dass vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 January, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 2006
Date of decision : 30.01.2013
Lachhman Dass
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate
for the petitioner
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG Haryana
for the State
Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
RANJIT SINGH, J.
On a complaint lodged by Lachhman Dass (CW-3) DDR No. 11 dated 17.01.1997 was registered. It is alleged that on 23.12.1996 at about 11.45 p.m. when CW-3 alongwith his family members were sleeping in his residential Chhan (hut) accused persons came there and set the hut on fire. As a result of this, the hut as well as the domestic articles of the complainant were destroyed and he suffered a huge loss. The Panchayat was convened in the village but the dispute could not be settled. It is then that the complainant CW-3 had reported the matter to the police on 17.01.1997 but still no action was taken.
The petitioner, accordingly, instituted the complaint before Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 2006 2 the Court. The Court find prima facie case under Section 427, 436 read with Section 34 IPC, summoned 11 accused persons. Since the offence under Section 436 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was, accordingly, committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, thereafter, heard the parties on charge, out of 11 persons only Baljit and Raj Kumar were charged and rest of the accused named in the complaint were discharged on 11.9.2004. The charge under Sections 427 and 436 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against Baljit and Raj Kumar. They both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. Infact Munshi Ram CW-2 is the only witness who could be termed as some what independent as other witnesses were highly interested witnesses and obviously had named large number of persons who were not found involved and were, accordingly, discharged. CW-2 deposed before the Court that 9 years back he had gone to Lachhman Dass for taking his jhota buggi (bullock cart). As per this witness, around midnight hut of Lachhman Dass was set on fire by Baljit. He has stated that household articles lying in the hut were burnt but cattle were taken out. This witness had also deposed that on the next day Panchayat was convened and the decision was taken to erect the hut again. No action was taken against the accused persons by the Panchayat. In one breath this witness has stated that Baljit and Raj Kumar were there but simultaneously deposed that Baljit was not there. This witness belongs to a different village located at 5-6 k.ms. from place of Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 2006 3 occurrence. The window and door of the hut were closed at the time of incident. During his cross-examination CW-2 conceded that he has not seen Baljit while setting the hut on fire. The proceedings of the Panchayat otherwise were reduced into writing.
Lachhman Singh and his wife are the two witnesses who have named both the witnesses Baljit and Raj Kumar. They were also cross-examined and confronted with their previous statement. It shall also reveal that the matter had been compromised between the parties in the Panchayat. Lachhman, the complainant in this case conceded during his cross-examination that earlier there was a dispute between him and the accused person regarding some agricultural land. He, however, pleaded ignorance when question about fact whether his brother had moved an application against Baljit and Raj Kumar regarding abduction of a child which was found false and proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. had been initiated against his brother.
Lachmi Devi - CW-4 is wife of the complainant. She deposed on the line of her husband. She otherwise admitted that they had bolted the door of the hut from inside. It is only after coming out that she saw the accused set the hut on fire and running away.
The Court examined the evidence of various witnesses in detail and recorded the order of acquittal of the respondent primarily on four counts. It was found that there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint which had not been properly explained. It is also noticed that no independent witness was examined to substantiate Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 2006 4 the allegation of the complainant and his wife were found to have been interested witnesses. CW-2 could be relied upon as he was from a different village and there was no reason for him to be present at the hut of the complainant as he had deposed. The Court also found that there was a previous enmity between the parties and chances of making false complaint against the complainant thus could not be ruled out. It is viewed that the complainant had named as many as 11 persons out of whom 9 were discharged by the Court finding no material or evidence against them. The Court also found that there was contradictory testimony of different witnesses. The independent witness also did not conduct himself well while under cross examination. He clearly, stated that he had not seen Baljit, though in his examination-in-chief he did name the said accused. There is otherwise no independent evidence against Baljit and Raj Kumar.
The trial Court in my view has rightly appreciated the evidence. Though another view may also be possible but that in itself may not be a sufficient ground to interfere in the order of acquittal while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
The limited scope of interference as laid down in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 61 can not be ignored. It is observed that High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 2006 5 miscarriage of justice. It is also observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence in revision and set aside the order of acquittal and order re-trial except in exceptional cases to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.
Keeping the above in view, I am of the considered opinion that no case for interference in the order of acquittal is made out. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
January 30, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) reena JUDGE