NAVROOP KAUR Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl. Revision arises out of a judgment dated 8.12.2003 in Crl. Case No. 119/1 of 2000 (FIR No. 57 dated 23.4.1999 registered under Sections 435 and 427 IPC at Police Station Phillaur) recording acquittal of the respondents.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that acquittal has been recorded mainly on the ground that the name of Kamaljit Singh (PW-4); who was harvesting wheat crop with his carbine at the time of incident, is not mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that both the parties also have a background of a protracted civil litigation over the property and, therefore, there was a motive for commission of offence. Learned counsel also submitted that since the parties were negotiating a compromise, therefore, the FIR was lodged after two days of the incident only on 23.4.1999. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the evidence of Balwinder Singh (P.W-2) to argue that he admitted the presence of Jarnail Singh, Sarpanch, as well as Navroop Kaur, complainant (PW-1) on the spot. Learned counsel also submitted, that though the name of PW-4 was not mentioned in the FIR but Balwinder Singh (PW-2) has clarified that PW-4 was harvesting his crop with his combine in his adjoining field. According to learned counsel, PW-4 has fully supported the prosecution case and he is an important witness of the incident Learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in support of his contentions. In the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 1 AICLR 598, learned counsel referred to para 19 to argue that even in a case where information was given to the police and the names of the accused persons were not disclosed, that lapse was not found to affect the credibility of the testimony of a witness, in the second judgment referred to by learned counsel, namely, Manoj alias Bhau v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 2 RCR(Cri) 347, the contention of the defence that the FIR was too sketchy was not accepted by the Court. The Hon'ble Court held that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of the evidence and what is required to be stated is the basic prosecution case.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Jarnail Singh, said to be present on the spot, was not cited as a witness; that Balwinder Singh (PW-2) has stated that the incident of fire took place due to sparks coming out of the combine machine; and that Shinghara Singh (DW-1) has clearly stated that his field had caught the fire first. Learned counsel also submitted that Kamaljit Singh (PW-4), an important witness, was not referred to in the FIR and the police after proper investigation had filed a cancellation report in favour of the accused respondents, however, the charge-sheet was filed only on the direction of the Court. Learned counsel also submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases and cited a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court (Ram Baksh Singh and others v. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004 3 AICLR 779) in support of this contention.