The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction and the High Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse or material evidence has been ignored.

CRR No.1941 of 2017

1

2023:PHHC:166224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.1941 of 2017

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 20^th of

March, 2017 passed by Addl. Session Judge, Narnaul affirming the order of

acquittal dated 25^th of October, 2016 passed by JMIC, Narnaul in case FIR

No.27 dated 1^st 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.

2.

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

Deepak Kumar

2024.01.12 09:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.1941 of 2017

2

2023:PHHC:166224

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 1^st of March,

2014 ibid came into being.

3.

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.

4.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through

records of the case.

5.

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.

6.

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:

"This Court however, by way of illustration, indicated the

Deepak Kumar

2024.01.12 09:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.1941 of 2017

3

2023:PHHC:166224

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 the acquittal."

The Court further observed: (SCC p.588, para 10)

"No doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial judge in

the case