IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pardeep Kumar ....Petitioner V/s Balbir Singh and others ....Respondents Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Date of Uploading : 18.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- complainant assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula whereby the accused- respondents have been acquitted as well as the judgment dated 15.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against acquittal of the respondents has been dismissed.

2. For clarity and simplicity, the revisionist-petitioner, who has lodged the FIR, will be referred to as the ‘complainant’ while respondents, (the accused in the FIR), will be referred to as the ‘accused’ throughout this judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.10.2013, Kuldeep and Dev Raj (respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein) allegedly came to the land of the petitioner situated in the revenue estate of Village Moginand and started taking photographs. Upon being objected by the complainant, they allegedly abused the petitioner and left the spot. It has been further alleged that on the same day, the petitioner received telephonic threats from the younger brother of Kuldeep. On the following day i.e. 09.10.2013, at about 10:00 AM, while the petitioner had gone to his agricultural land, the accused persons, namely Balbir, Kuldeep, Jaspal and Dev Raj (respondents herein) along with some other unidentified persons, allegedly arrived at the spot armed with lathis, dandas and hockey sticks and inflicted injuries upon him. Thereafter, the petitioner become unconscious and later regained consciousness in General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula. Although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 09.10.2013, however, the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 14.10.2013, on the basis of which FIR No. 268 dated 15.10.2013 was registered under Sections 323, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Chandimandir. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented and the accused (respondents herein) were put to trial. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record as also the submissions advanced by the rival parties, acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the petitioner had preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, thereby affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court.

3.1. The complainant, aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking re- examination of the findings on the ground that the same are based on mis- appreciation of evidence and procedural irregularities. However, it is well-

settled law that the scope of revision is limited and does not entail a re- appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that both the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and have wrongly discarded the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel has further iterated that the delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained on account of police inaction and the mental condition of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the prosecution evidence was consistent and sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and the minor discrepancies, if any, ought not to have been made the basis for the acquittal. It has been further contended that the judgments of acquittal passed by both the Courts below are prima facie perverse and contrary to the established principles of law, as it disregards the facts, circumstances and evidence