High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1941/2017dismissed

Satish Kumar v. Ombir & ANR

2023-12-08Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.12.2023 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

Ombir and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramesh K. Ambavta, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Complainant is in revision against the judgment dated 20th of March, 2017 passed by Addl. Session Judge, Narnaul affirming the order of acquittal dated 25th of October, 2016 passed by JMIC, Narnaul in case FIR No.27 dated 1st of March, 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 181/192/196 of the MV Act, at Police Station Ateli.

As per the case of the prosecution ruqa regarding death of one Jaswant Singh in a motor-vehicular accident was received. Thereupon statement of Satish Kumar was recorded who moved a written complaint alleging that on the fateful day at around 7.15 PM his brother was coming from the side of Kheri on bicycle. Ombir and Puran who were in an

inebriated condition while going towards Nawdi from Kheri hit his brother and fled away from the spot. Jaswant Singh was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead. Resultantly, FIR No.27 dated 1st of March, 2014 ibid came into being.

Trial Court after analyzing the evidence thread bare found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused Ombir beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and hence acquitted him.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

Counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence and has not been able to show any glaring error of law that can persuade this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code.

Law w.r.t. exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court already stands settled by the Apex Court in Thankappan Nadar vs. Gopala Krishnan (2002) 9 SCC 393, wherein it has been held as under :

"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 of the Cr.P.C. is limited. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to few decisions rendered by this Court. In Akalu Ahir and Others v. Ramdeo Ram,(1973) 2 SCC 583 this Court has (in SCC pp.587-88, para 8) observed thus:

! !

!! ( %&

! "

! )! ) !( %&

))

! "

! * ( %&

' *

+ %&

))

!*) "

! !

" *

))

,!)

%- ) .// )

))

# " !

) !

))

) !*)

))

! )

" 2+

" )

3 !

%4*)

In Raj Kumar vs. State of H.P., (2008) 11 SCC 76, Apex Court held that :

, *

!! "

"! "

! !

" "

! ! )

))!

' "

- 9 "

! !

" "

))! *

))

) !

! !

" "

!! -)*

))

# $

" !

- 9 " ,!

- 9 "

' (

# ) **+ , -,

) ,!

!!"

) !

$ )

))

;

)))

))!

!* *

" !

* " *!

,!"

Further, Apex Court in State Rep. By The Drugs Inspector vs. Manimaran (2019) 13 SCC 670 held as under : "15.................When there is concurrent findings by the courts below, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction. The High court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below is perverse or that the court has ignored the material evidence while arriving at that finding. As held in State of Kerala v.

Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions court in appeal. When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings of fact, in our view, the High Court was not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and the impugned order cannot be sustained." 9.

In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any glaring error of law that can persuade this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction to upset the findings recorded by the Courts below. The Courts have rightly appreciated the

entire evidence and found the petitioner guilty. Consequently, the present revision is dismissed.

December 08, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No