Soma v. State Of Punjab And ANR.










 

 






 
! "! #

 

 


 
!
"

#! 
 $

 %&
$'!
 '
( 
'

$

%
&"'
(!%)

"
#


(**"
+ #'
((+'
  
,

#!
, 
-----
( 
')
!
* +,-
."

%
#
"

/!

)"//00
"
# 0!
!0
!!
1 2  '
#!
3
"
/!

& !0'
&/!"'
4" 3
"
)) !
#
"%

)5 !


)#/
)
!
)
 
!
1('

6!
/
!'
 

"

!/'
"
)

"
)

"
"
0
 )#/
4
/!
4"
)) !#!
,

7 11
(
"

0
 
4
#

"

3
"
/3
!
3
%/  /'
)/ !0
0/!
4//3
!
" "/!
)/'
4
0%

"
)) !
84%'
 



0'
"
#!'
'
"
"

 !
!
/4

"
)#/'
!
"0
"

0
/
!43
!
!
# 0
"

0
9 '

:

;#!
"

 *3
!
4"
"
;#!
"
"/#/'
//
"
)) !'
/3
4"
9:
!3

"
0'
!

0 /
"
!
%
"4


)"

"
"
4
 !
 

"
" 

"
/4

"
"

& /3'
11

0"
" 
"
/!

)#/
  
"


 
"

"/
'
!
4
" /!

"
/
"
 

)#
4


)!
4
"
!
"
)) !
6
"

43'
4"
"
)#/
4
 !
 

"
/
"

(#/
111'
"
%!

##/)
 
"

"/
!/'
"!0"'
4")"
%
 !
"
"

 !
!
4
"
)) !'

"3
!!

##
"

 5 /3

  111
"
#
/0
4"
"
"
!

"
#
4

"
/
"
!
*!
"
"

 !
!
/4

"
" /
"


 
"
!43
)/
/30

"
#'
"4%'
"
#/
4

/!


(
)#/
4
%!
3
"
#
0
"
"  !'
# /4
!
 /0

"
"

 !'
"4%'
/3
"
"

 !
4
)%)!
!
)
1(
6

!0
0 
#


#!

2
3
/0
4"
#3
 

 '

:
4"/
//
"
"
4
)5 !
6
"
##/
/!
)"//00
"
!
 )%)
!!
    '
)5 /

"
/4
/3

"
)#/
4
#"/!
!
"
)%)

"
"

 !
4
/

!'
" 3
)5 0
"

"
)"0
!
)
1(
6
(00%!
3
"
)5 /

"
#!"

 !'
"
#
"

/!
"
#
%
#


2
<!
) /

"
#
 
"
"
/!
##//
) 
"!
!

0
!
"
)%)
!
)5 0
"
#!:"

 !

"
)"0
!
)
1(
6

6

 !
"
"
#
"!
0%
"
!/!
)) 

"
) /3


!
3
"

"
"!

#!'
!
/

"
  
)
4"
"
"!

 !

"
/
"
3
"
"

 !

."
!/
!
3
"

"
)#/
4
/
!
3
"

"'
!
"

4
/
) !
3
"


=

2
!
=2
>
"
/!
./
 
%/*!
"

!
)5 !
"
#!
 /0

%3
 )



)'
/!

) /
"
 !
"
#!

4
)%)!
!
)
1(
6

!0
three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000/-, !

"


"
#) 
4
84%'
"
/!
(##//
 '
4"/

#"/!0
"
)5 /

"
/3
 

"
#!'
%
 !
"
)%)
!
)5 !
"

"
)"0
!
)
1(
6
)0
/)*

%!)

9
( 
"%0
"!
"
)
!
# !
"
)!'

)
 
"
!

0
"
/'
!
"
)#/
4
"
4
/3
= *!
</
!
=2

< "3
4
;!
?#
!0
/)*

#) )
//0
0
"
#
!
 /0

"
#!
!

 )

3
) %
%!)'
"3
4
)5 !
3
"
/
 
%!
!0
!!
    ."
)%)

"
#!

!
)
1(
6
4

!

##/'

"
0 !
"

"
)#/
"!
/!

 /"
"
)
0
"
#
3!
 /
! 

6
4
"
)

"
#
"
"
"!

 !

"
/
"

  
))'
) 
 4")"
"
%
##)"!
"

"/

4)

84%'

%!)

) 
"
 
4
!%)!
3
"
#
%'

4
//0!
"
"
#
4
 )!

#"3)/
) /3'


!)/
%!)'
" 0"


5 
'
4
# 
"
@ "'

%!)

 ##

"
)
0!0
"
!43
)/
# #!/3
0%

"
0'
)/ !0
//

# )"'
4

#!
3
"
)#/:#

6
"
!#
!
3
"
#


)#/
4'
"
4
/
#%
4"


#)



#) )
)
!
!'


4")"
 !
!

"
)#/
@ "'
"
)#/
"!
/
!!

"
)
;
"
"
0
4
# !

"
" 
/ '
!
/
!!
"
"
#!
"!
/!

#
!
)
1
 "
8!

0
()
'

4
!
3
=
! 0
"
)
;
"
"
#
!
#!
"!
%
3!
0"
 
& 3
111'
//3
)!)0
"
%

"
)#/

."
4
/
)!)
4
"


"
#:)#/
!
=2
4"
#)

"
/

!43
)/

(//
"
)
4"


)) #)
!!
"


"
)#/
4


/ /




!
"
/


)%)

"
#!

"
 )

3
) %
%!)
4"%


@//40
"
 %
!

Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, (1973) 2 SCC 583, the HonAble Supreme Court in Thankappan Nadar & Ors. v. Gopala Krishnan & Anr. 2002(9) SCC 393, laid down the aforesaid principles :
"6.

In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order, the Court's jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P.C., 1973 is limited. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to a few decisions rendered by this Court. In Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, (1973) 2 SCC 583 , this Court has (in SCC pp.

587-88, para 8) observed thus: "This Court , however, by way of illustration, indicating the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision :
(i) Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused;
(ii) Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;
(iii) Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible;
(iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court ; and
(v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.

These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal ."

9
The Court further observed: (SCC p. 588, para 10)
"10. No doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial Judge in the case in hand is not perfect or free from flaw and a court of appeal may well have felt justified in disagreeing with its conclusion, but from this it does not follow that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a court of appeal and then order a retrial. It is unfortunate that a serious offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in the matter of election to the office of village mukhia, should go unpunished. But that can scarcely be a valid ground for ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated by this Court ."
(emphasis added)"
7.

Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad" held that "
%/
!)

"
80"
 


 )
217
!
4"
)
 

"
!

/
)!



%//3
)!'
#) //3
4"




!0

)5 /


8%0
# !
"
)

"
)

/
"
!0
)!!
3
##//
 '
"
 


"
)!!
#
"

"
)

"!'
"


 3

0 /3

"
# 0!

!0
4" 3
"
##//
 

!
"
)%)
!

)5 !
"
#!

"
)"0
!
)
1(
6'
4"/
/
#"/!0
"
)5 /
!

"
"
)) !
."

0
#*0'
4//
!
!
!
#
))
##)
 )'
##/) /
/4

!)/
#)!'
!

 )
(

)//3'
"
#
%
#
!
!!


1
!0
)// 
##/) '

3'
/
!
!#!
 

























































*( 
'-
! "! #

















 

=""
#*0:!
>:,
=""
# /
>:,