Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been preferred by complainant Harbhajan Singh challenging acquittal of Malkiat Singh, Avtar Singh, Sadhu Singh, Sube Singh, Harbans Singh, Bachittar Singh and Naranjan Singh. These accused were tried in case FIR No. 94 dated 28.08.1993 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala under Section 325/323/148/149 IPC.
(2.) NO appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In the FIR, it was stated by Harbhajan Singh that on 28th August, 1993 at about 10.30 a.m., the present accused came to his house and sat there to resolve the dispute of Avtar Singh son of Bachittar Singh. It is stated that he sent his son Harjit Singh to bring tea from the house of his sister and when Harjit Singh came back, present accused started giving slaps to his son Harjit Singh. It is further stated that Bachittar Singh and Naranjan Singh accused exhorted their co -accused that complainant Harbhajan Singh and his son be finished as they had committed an excess in the election of Sarpanch in the village. It is further stated that Harbans Singh son of Naranjan Singh gave kamani blow on the head of Harbhajan Singh and thereafter, Malkiat Singh gave a saria blow on the head of the complainant. When he ran towards the gate of his house, he was dragged by the accused outside the gate of the house and then Sadhu Singh, Sube Singh and Avtar Singh gave him injuries. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration various documents and came to the conclusion that occurrence has not taken place at the time suggested by the complainant. Learned trial Court further doubted place of occurrence and manner of the occurrence as stated by the complainant in the court. Taking into account the discrepancies and improvements, the court appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that prosecution case is not proved and granted benefit of doubt to the acquitted accused.
(3.) IT was held in : 1968CriLJ665 Mahendra Partap Singh v. Sarju Singh and Anr., relying upon D.Stephens v. : 1951CriLJ510 , as under: only two grounds are mentioned by this Court as entitling the High Court to set aside an acquittal in a revision and to order a retrial. They are that there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. In explaining these two propositions, this Court further states that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Session or if even there is mis -appreciation of evidence. Again, in Logendranath Jha v. : [1951]2SCR676 , this Court points out that the High Court is entitled in revision to set aside an acquittal if there is an error on a point of law or no appraisal of the evidence at all this Court observes that it is not sufficient to say that the judgment under revision is "perverse" or "lacking in true correct perspective". It is pointed out further that by ordering a retrial, the dice is loaded against the accused, because however much the High Court may caution the Subordinate Court, it is always difficult to re -weigh the evidence ignoring the opinion of the High Court. Again in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. : [1963]3SCR412 , it is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court. As stated not one of these points which have been laid down by this Court, was covered in the present case. In fact on reading the judgment of the High Court it is apparent to us that the learned judge has reweighed the evidence from his own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions judge on almost every point. This we do not conceive to be his duty in dealing in revision with an acquittal when Government has not chosen to file an appeal against it. In other words, the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.;