IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J.
Prem Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Jaspal Singh & Others - Respondent
CRR-136-2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-03-2026
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of a Criminal Revision Petition filed against the judgment dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ambala (for brevity, “Appellate Court”) by which an appeal filed by the respondents/accused (for brevity, “accused”) was disposed of and the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2007 was modified to the extent that the accused-Narinder Singh was acquitted of the charge framed against him whereas other accused were ordered to be released on probation subject to they furnishing requisite bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant-Prem Singh has four brothers, one Ram Pal Singh being youngest of them. All of them were residing separately. Some land of Prem Singh and his nephew Mangat Singh was comprised in Abadi Deh of Village Rampur situated near baithak of accused Roop Singh (since deceased) where cowdung cakes had been stacked and certain wooden logs were also stored. On 28.11.1990 at about 8.30 a.m., Prem Singh and his nephew Mangat Singh as well as Sunil Kumar had gone to dig a foundation on the said land for raising a boundary wall. When they started digging the foundation, accused Jaspal Singh, Roop Singh, Des Raj, Surinder Singh, Nepal Singh, Krishan and Babli, with Narinder Singh, armed with lathis and gandasis, came there. They proclaimed that said land belongs to them. Such proclamation led to exchange of words. In result, Roop Singh got infuriated and provoked others to teach a lesson to Prem Singh etc. He inflicted a lathi blow on head of Prem Singh. He then gave its blow on his forehead. Third blow thereof was given on ear of Prem Singh. Accused Des Raj gave a lathi blow on right shoulder of Prem Singh whereas the accused Narinder Singh gave lathi blows on his right shoulder as well as his right elbow. Accused Surinder Singh gave a lathi blow on his right hand and another blow thereof on his left ankle. Prem Singh fell down. Accused Roop Singh gave a lathi blow on his right shoulder whereas accused Nepal Singh gave lathi blows on his ankle and left elbow. Accused Jaspal Singh gave a reverse-side blow of gandasi on right hand of Prem Singh. Said accused also caused injuries to Sunil Kumar and Mangat Singh. On raising alarm, one Som Nath son of Surat Singh and Surat Singh as well as Atma Ram came to the spot. They rescued Prem Singh from the accused. After criminally intimidating Prem Singh, the accused fled from the spot with their respective weapons. All three injured were taken to hospital. On getting information about admission of injured to the Civil Hospital, SI Jai Ram etc. reached Civil Hospital, Mullana and recorded statement of Prem Singh. On its basis, a DDR and then an FIR was registered on that very date. Investigation was started. Medical evidence was collected. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “1973 Code”) was prepared. It was presented before the concerned Area Magistrate.
3. After complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 of the 1973 Code, the Learned Magistrate, vide order dated 23.10.1998, charge-sheeted the accused for commission of offences under Section 148 as well as Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “1860 Code”). The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
4. In its evidence, prosecution examined 6 witnesses. It also proved documents referred to by the Learned Courts below in the impugned judgment/s.
5. In their respective statements under Section 313 of 1973 Code, the accused denied the incriminating evidence put to them with a plea of false implication on account of prior enmity. They produced 2 witnesses in their defence. After proving documents Mark-A and Mark-A2, they closed their evidence.
6. On conclusion of evidence, conce
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited; it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction without manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.
(1) No revision shall be entertained at instance of victim against order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and victim is to be relegated to file appeal.(2) Right provided to victim ....
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
Criminal Revision - Scope of criminal revision is very limited.
The victim's right to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal.
In appeals against acquittal, courts must respect the presumption of innocence and should only interfere if the trial's conclusions are shown to be perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of evid....
The High Court cannot overturn an acquittal unless exceptional circumstances demonstrate a manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice, reaffirming the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.