High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/136/2010disposed of

Prem Singh v. Jaspal Singh And ORS.

2026-03-30Justice (To Be Nominated)20 pages

!"" #

$%$&'$()* "

&)*)+*,$()* "

-.)/($()* "

! !

:: &

' (")

" '*

) ") '+, % ")

)

" - . '**

"/"

( )

$2!2 $!!3

;

4 )

" 5 (67

4 ) " 5

67 %

) ) $2!2$!!2 %

9 !"!!

!!#

% ,

% % %

2- '

< &

7 % %

, % % = $>33!

> ! " %'

% ?

" "< " "- " *

"% - " %

% A " ),

0 % 0 ) % 1 % %

)

< ) % %

- ) %

) %

% , %

) % %

- ) % , %

) ) %

* '

= "-

% )%

3- % , =

()0 "A

()0 "' =

" << BA %

) A) %

) %

% =

) " 2 ( ( "32 4 ) "532 (67%

% ) $!2 32 (" ; '

") $ !33>"

$ " $D" D!. % C3 A (">.!4 ) "5>.!(671

C A ) " 8 . %

A )

; ( % # D A ) 32 ("

) %

1 $ %

) '

, '

, $" ) . = ) " '

" )

$ " $D"D!. % C3>.!(1 %

2 )

) "

( 1 $2!2$!!3" ; (

0%)"

)

" *

" - " < %

0%)"

% )

" *

" - " < %

!"!!!# 4 7 !"!!!#

1 ( %

) %

- %

)

; 1 ( A %

) $2!2$!!3"

) ( > A

) (" )

" *

) ")

" - . **

" ; /" 0

" ) ?

)

53 ;

- %

9 @

% ) D

1 %

A "

8" )

- ) ) #

; 1 ( D

% )

; 1 (1 " "

! =

" - .

9 -."

- D

A)% "9 )) A ,

) A

, ) %

1 8 )

) A "

012$*($&3% //*1*45#/*)25$&6"7 8"

!!2$!$D &191*/. $'1%1)* ) ""0/*$%5+22:/+%51;3% 2/2$)</&=/*/#/*)25$& ; )

8 12.

After such hearing and perusal, I may state that through the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2009, the accused Narinder Singh was

6acquitted of the charges framed against him in the case in question. In view of such acquittal, if the State was aggrieved of the same, in terms of Section 378(1) of the 1973 Code, an appeal was maintainable.

(a)

#$#

! &

$ "

'$ $$ ( (b)

) ! !"

#$#

* %

! $ $$ &

$ " " %

* %

+ $

, 13.

A perusal of above reproduced provision shows that an appeal by the State of Haryana only was maintainable against a judgment of acquittal passed in favour of accused if such judgment was rendered prior to 31.12.2009. In the present case, the impugned judgment was rendered on 27.07.2009. Therefore, an appeal thereagainst at the instance

7of the complainant was not maintainable. The complainant Prem Singh has therefore rightly filed a revision petition against the same. 14.

I may also state that revisional powers of this Court can be exercised in terms of Section 401 of the 1973 Code. Therefore, present revision has to be dealt within the parameters contained in the said section. Said section is therefore reproduced as -

". /

$$ " $

! 0 $

* %

1 "

2$" 34 35 565 %

" 67

8 !

9 &$$"

! " 5 :

$$!

$$" "$

$$ !

* %

$ ;<

% $$ $

" " $$

$ $ <

% $$ $ !

* %

$ !

* %

$ $$

! $"= D A

C!4 732 (" (

)

9 ) A

) % 0 (" @

0E (" 0 /;/./-/21 /&/=/*/ />/-/251 />+ # )25$&% 3% )*/-/..1 $(/ --/(+ # /*)25$&6 8?7??"

)

- ;5

% % !$ #

1 $

* %

!"1 "

$ > ! 1 $" ; ;5

$$ !

* %

$ ;5 $

0" !$

9- &

1 $

1 $" 1 $

$ &

! $$ $ "

# $ % & "'

)*+,-

+( .

($ '

()*+- '(

"0 1 .

)*+- '2/ $ !

$ 0 ! $"

$" > * %

$! $ = . A

) % 0 (" @

0E (" 0+.1 5/*( 3% $.51 (91*1%2&/21)*6 8?7 !8"

)

-;?:

* %

% !$ 9 2$ $$"

! 0

$ $ 8

* %

$ 1!

$$ >

$ $8

$ "

$ %

$$ $ "

10- $

$$ ?

?> * %

1 "

$ 2 $ 8

* %

!$"

" $

$ > * %

$ $" $

$$ ?= 2 A ) % 0 ( C 3 ( ( " >3> 4 ) 5>3> (67" @

0E (" 0:

51**/%@/9= $((=3% 2/2$)<

6 8!?AA% % "

)

* %

$ 1 "

11- * %

$" 1 $

! $

$ & $"

$ !

; ;5 * %

!0 $$

* %

$ "

$ $"

$ > $ $!

* %

$ $"1 $

$1 / $ $"

! 1 $

$ $$ < !"

$ "

* %

$ > !" A

$$&

$" $

! $ $ 0

12- !

$ >

!$ $"

$ 1 $

* %

$ $"

;5;<

* %

$= > A ) % 0 (" @

0E (" 0=)(5=/+B$# )25$&%3% /9+9$&1*456 8A+--A "% :

51**/%@/9= $((=C%&$-)&2%+-&/"

)

* %

$$ <!"

* %

$ 1

! "

(#" $

3 $ 4'+25 + "

1 $ $$

1 <

1 "

* %

$" "

% !$ 8 " ! ! B $ BC

C $$ $" $ < %

$ ! ;

13-

$$ % $ !

! $$ !0$ B$$1$ $$ $ = 3 A

% " % @

0E (" 0/*/2//.3% 5)@(5/&=6 88 "7"

)

"130. The object of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 is to confer power upon superior criminal Courts - a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction - in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case, anxious attention being given to the said facts and circumstances which vary greatly from case to case.

131. xxxx xxxx xxxx

132. The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and

14substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles."

$! ?

) /*/2/ /.C% &$-)&2 %+-&/ % ) " @

0E (" 5 5/;;/. 3% /9$% /%*$22 # /*)25$&6 """8"

)

-5< !

1 $ <

* %

$ ;6

% 1 "

" $

! >

* %

% " & 1 $"

$ ! $$"= $ A ) 0 (" %

0E (" 02/2$ )< :$&/./3% +22+9/*/../25/25/'$(/*/9B))(1&16 888 7"

)

15- -* 1!

! 8 !

* %

$ $

* %

1 $ / / $

* %

$$ 1!

" $

$ $ " " " /

" 8 1 "

* %

$ &

2$$ %

2$$ 8 D $"

* %

! $

$ " "

8 $ $ " $

* %

! !

= $$ =

) +.1 5/*(C% &$-)&2 %+-&/ 02/2$ )< &1%%/ 3 /;+./ /5+6 8?8 A

+22+9/*/../25C%&$-)&2%+-&/% )

0E ( 0 /> :+9/&3% 2/2$)<19/,5/. &/($%56 ""A?!

1623.

Applying the said observations to the present case, I may state that the Appellate Court, while dealing with the case against the accused Narinder Singh, has categorically observed that the said accused has taken a specific stand in his statement under Section 313 of 1973 Code that he was on duty at Ramgarh, Tehsil Panchkula, on that date. It also observes that in support of his such contention, the said accused examined 2 witnesses in his defence. DW1 Sandeep Kumar presented a report of the relevant period and deposed that the said accused had issued some record to one Nathu on the date of the occurrence in question i.e. 28.11.1990. It further records that the said Nathu was examined as DW2 who identified the accused Narinder Singh and stated that the said accused issued a Fard to him on the said date at 9.00 a.m.

It also mentions that in his crossexamination, PW1 Prem Singh has stated that the said accused lives at Panchkula. After recording that the said accused, on the date of occurrence in question, was stated to be at a distance of 50 kms from the place of occurrence, the Appellate Court then observed that it is still inclined to accept plea of absence of the accused Narinder Singh at the spot and to give him benefit of doubt because his brother Babli had also been named by the prosecution not only before the police but also in the Court and a specific role had been assigned to him. It further mentions that it was done so despite the fact that the accused Babli was found present on that date in Leh since he was employed/posted in ITBP.

17the accused Narinder Singh at the spot, in such circumstances, becomes doubtful. By observing so in favour of the said accused, the Appellate Court gave him the benefit of doubt and accepted his appeal by acquitting him. The above referred to conclusion/s arrived at by the Learned Appellate Court, in the facts/circumstances of the present case, are certainly possible on the basis of the evidence on record and are reasonable conclusion/s. Even if another reasonable conclusion may have been arrived in the case in question against the said accused, this Court, in a revision petition against acquittal, will not disturb a finding of acquittal on the basis of possibility of two conclusions. By earning an acquittal through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, the said accused has double presumption of innocence in his favour. $C )

)

- )

% 8 ) A )

)

8 8

% 9 )

) ) 1

9 9 % :

51**/%@/9= $((=C% &$-)&2 %+-&/ 9% ) =)(5=/+B$C%&$-)&2%+-&/8

18- )

A 8

25.

Next limb of the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Learned Appellate Court has illegally granted benefit of probation to the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh (respondent Nos.1 to 5). However, as against his such argument, learned counsel for the accused has relied upon Jitender's report (supra) and Ganesh Dutt Kaushik's judgment (supra) to contend that elapsing of probation period imposed on the accused renders challenge to grant of probation as infructuous. The said reports are by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. No report contrary to the report/judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused has been cited before me. The impugned judgment was passed by the Learned Appellate Court on 27.07.2009.

Through the same, it observed as under:- "The accused have been facing the ordeal of trial for the last more than 19 years. They are not previous convicts and are first offenders. They are sole bread earners of their families. The appellants had been held guilty of having committed an offence under Sections 148/323/325 read with section 149 and 506 of IPC, which is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence being covered under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further in view of the ratio laid down in State of Punjab Vs.

19the ends of justice would be met if the appellants/accused are released on probation. Accordingly the appellants are ordered to be released on probation subject to their furnishing requisite bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each undertaking therein that the appellants shall maintain peace and harmony for a period of one year and in case during this period they commit any offence the sentence imposed by the learned trial court will revive. The probation will be without supervision. It is further ordered that the appellants namely Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Desh Raj and Surinder Singh shall pay a compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant/injured. The amount of fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2000/- by each appellant) already deposited by the appellants Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Desh Raj and Surinder Singh in the trial court is converted towards the costs of proceedings......"

26.

A perusal of the above-reproduced observations shows that the said accused were released on probation for a period of one year. Today, we are running in the year 2026. The said period of probation, therefore, has elapsed. In view thereof, Jitender's report (supra) and Ganesh Dutt Kaushik's judgment (supra) are fully applicable to the case in question in respect of expiry of probation period imposed on the above-stated accused. The argument/s of learned counsel for the petitioner, in that regard, therefore, are rejected. It being so, the present

20revision petition, qua the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh, has been rendered infructuous. 27.

For the reasoning given and discussion made in preceding portion of the present judgment, the present revision petition against the accused Narinder Singh is dismissed whereas it is disposed off as infructuous against the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh (respondent Nos.1 to 5). All interim application/s also stand disposed of.

"! $ ?

, #

F ?