Jaswant Singh v. Rattan Singh etc

register two cases against FIR No. 73 P.S. Sadar Ambala dated 19.3.91. Present case was registered at the instance of Amrit Singh (PW1) against the above mentioned accused persons u/s 324/34 IPC, having D.D. Entry No. 31 dated 19.3.95 at 9.05 P.M. As per the police proceedings recorded beneath the complaint Ex.PA, the I.O. Gurbachan Singh P.S. Sardar Ambala had arrived at Civil Hospital, Ambala City on having received the information on the basis of medical rukka, regarding the admission of Rajinder Singh (Accused in present case) in civil Hospital, Ambala city. When I.O. Gurbachan Singh reached at Civil Hospital, Ambala City, he found that injured Rajinder had already been referred to PGI, Chandigarh. There at, Constable Kulwant Singh 1693 of Police Post No. 3, Ambala City met him and handed him a medical rukka regarding the admission of Jaswant Singh s/o Amar Singh (PW2). On being asked by the I.O. Gurbachan Singh, the concerned doctor declared Jaswant Singh unfit to make the statement qua his injuries. There upon Amrik Singh s/o Ajmer singh (PW1) met the I.O. At Civil Hospital, Ambala City and got recorded his statement Ex.PA.

4. The complainant Ex.PA was got recorded on Crl.Rev.No. 2456 of 2003 (O&M) 3

19.3.91 at about 8.45 P.M. In the complaint Ex.PA, it was stated by the complainant that he had exchanged a bara with Barkha Ram. He wanted to raise the boundary wall on the said bara, but an electric pole already installed in the bara was causing hindrance in raising the boundary wall. For removing the wall, he applied to the electricity department. On 19.3.91 the officials of the electricity board had come at his bara and were uprooting the same. The officials of the electricity board had cut off the electric supply.The complainant was present at his bara and was watching the work of the officials. Jaswant Singh PW2 an official of electricity department had also come at the spot and was talking with the complainant.

5. At about 2 P.M. Jagir Singh accused (Since deceased) having a house adjoining to the bara came there and raised Lalkara 'that Jaswant PW2 was the root cause of the trouble that he (Jaswant) had only cut off the electricity supply to their houses and be not allowed to go safe.' Upon said exhortation, at once accused Rajinder having Kulhari in his hand, Rattan Singh accused having sariya in his hand and Udam Singh accused having a lathi in his hand, together came there and Rajinder Singh accused gave a Kulhari blow (axe upon the head of Jaswant Singh, Rattan Singh gave a sariya blow on the Crl.Rev.No. 2456 of 2003 (O&M) 4 head of Jaswant Singh. Consequently Jaswant Singh fell on the ground. Udam Singh gave lathi blow on the fallen Jaswant Singh which Jaswant Singh received at his left leg and left shoulder. The complainant and Tirlochan Singh s/o Mohinder Singh had come at the spot and rescued the injured (Jaswant) with the help of the officials of the electricity board, otherwise accused persons would have give more injuries to Jaswant. The injuries Jaswant was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ambala City by the complainant.

6. The above said statement (Ex.PA) was read over to the complainant who affix his signatures on the complaint Ex.PA after hearing and admitting the contents as true. The statement Ex.PA was attested by the I.O.

7. Upon the statement of the complainant, coupled with the MLR of the injured Jaswant Singh commission of offence u/s 323/34 IPC was made out. The I.O. Gurbachan Singh in his police proceedings requested SHO Ambala Sadar to register the case against the accused persons u/s 324/34 IPC. Accordingly, the case was registered at FIR No. 73 with D.D. No. 31 dated

19.3.91 u/s 324/34 IPC.

8. Police took up the investigation, arrested the accused persons. During the investigation of this case on Crl.Rev.No. 2456 of 2003 (O&M) 5

22.3.1991 I.O. Gurbachan Singh recorded the statement of Rajinder. On his statement a cross case was registered u/s 323,325,506 I.P.C. against the complainant party.

9. After completion of the entire investigation, the challan was present against the present accused persons u/s 323,324/34 IPC for the trial, in shape of challan No.1 before the Area Magistrate. The accused persons were accordingly charge sheeted u/s 323,324/34 IPC. The evidence was led before the Area Magistrate. However vide order dated 12.5.99 present case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, by the then learned ACJM, Ambala under the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C. by observing that the present case has arisen out of the incident to which another case titled State Vs. Amrik Singh (the second challan) had already been committed.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Amrik Singh-complainant had lodged FIR In this case. However, the trial Court in the impugned judgment held that the plea taken by the complainant that employees of the Electricity Board were uprooting the electricity pole in a lawful manner was not established. Had it been so the colleagues of Jaswant Singh would have tried to save him from the hands of accused persons. Crl.Rev.No. 2456 of 2003 (O&M) 6 Moreover, the Investigating Officer PW-6 Gurbachan Singh had stated that it had not come to his notice during investigation that employees of the Electricity Board were present at the spot for digging and pulling of the electricity pole from the bara in question. Learned trial Court further came to the conclusion that, in fact, Jaswant Singh injured was the aggressor and started the fight which resulted in serious injury to Rajinder Singh who had come there to request the complainant party not to uproot the pole. The injury on the person of Jaswant Singh had been caused in self defence by the accused. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence by the trial Court. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant a retrial. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of Crl.Rev.No. 2456 of 2003 (O&M) 7 acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. March 05 , 2010 SABINA) JUDGE