Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
(1) This is a criminal revision by Shri Bachhittar singh, a private party and brother of the deceased Manjit Singh, against. acquittal of Inderjit Singh, Som Nath, Jit Singh, Manmohan Singh and Prithipal Singh by Shri P.L. Singla, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi by his order dated 27th November, 1976 for various charges like 302/452/147/148/149 Ipc and also against acquittal of Inderjit Singh on the charge u/s. 25 of the Arms Act.
(2) The occurrence in the present case is stated to be an offshoot of election rivalry arising out of the election for Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee which was held in Delhi on 30th March, 1975. The complainant-petitioner Bachittar Singh and Bawa Narain Singh and another were candidate in Ward No.44. On 31st March,1975,the result of the election was declared and Bawa Narain Singh was declared elected. The supporters of Bawa Narain Singh took out a procession to celebrate his success. The supporters yelled in front of the residence of Bachittar Singh and also allegedly threatened Bachittar Singh with death. Bachittar Singh went to the police station Patel Nagar along with Barkat Punjabi and Amrik Singh. All the three of them were sitting with the S.H.O. when a telephonic call was received and the S.H.O. talked the caller that Bachittar Singh was with him and was complaining against Indri (Inderjit Singh) who should be asked to restrain himself. There after, Bachittar Singh and Amrik Singh returned to the house of Bachittar Singh while Barkat Punjabi went away. When they returned to the house, Bhagat Singh, who is Bachittar Singh's mother's sisters's son. (P.W.9) Jaswant Singh (P.W.7) and Amarjit Singh (P.W.5) as well as Manjit Singh were already present there.
(3) It is then alleged that at about 9.15 P.M. Inderjit Singh, Prithipal Singh and Jit Singh accompanied by two or three unknown persons went to the house of Bachittar Singh. They are alleged to have thrown soda water bottles whereupon Manjit Singh came out of the house out of curiosity when he was caught hold by Prithipal Singh and Jit Singh and stabbed by Inderjit Singh. After stabbing, Inderjit Singh threw the dagger on the roadside but he was allegedly overpowered by public and belaboured with lathis, Manjit Singh fell unconscious and Inderjit Singh was caught hold of by the public. The remaining accused an from the spot to the house of Prithipal Singh thapper and were followed by Bachittar Singh and other people of the public.
(4) In the house of Prithipai Singh there was fresh brick-batting and some articles of Prithipai Singh were damaged. Some unknown person telephoned the Control Room and at about 9.30 P.M. information was also received about the incident by the police station Patel Nagar.
(5) Banwari Lal, S H.O. of P.S. Patel Nagar along with others reached the house of Bachittar Singh where he found the police of Control Room had already reached and was removing Manjit Singh, injured to the Willingdon Hospital. Inspector B L. Anand (P.W.27) removed the accused Inderjit Singh to the hospital in another van.
(6) On hearing at the spot about the incident at 'the house of Prithipal Singh Thappar, the S.H.C). also visited his house and again came to the spot and recorded the statement of Bachittar Singh (P.W.I) an alleged eye-witness on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered and took into possession knife (Ex.P/1), two lathis (Exs. P/2 and P/3) and Soda water bottles (Exs. P/5, P/6 and P/7) and one armless Chair (Ex. P/4).
(7) Manjit Singh died on 1.4.1975 at about 5.05 P.M. Investigation was, thereafter, handed over to the Special Staff. The Special Staff recorded statements of the rest of the witnesses, including the four eye witnesses, namely, Amarjit Singh (P.W.5) who is brother of the deceased, Bhagat Singh (P.W.4), Amrik Singh (P.W.3) and Jaswant Singh (P.W.7) Amrik Singh and Jaswant Singh are not residents of the locality. The name of Amarjit Singh (P.W.5) as an eye-witness was also not mentioned in the F.I.R.
(8) The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, gave various findings. The findings are :
(1)That none of the eye-wtinesses was present at the time of the occurrence; (2) Even if they were present, they were not telling truth since the genesis of the fight is surrounded with mystery and they are giving false Explanationn of injuries to Inderjit Singh, accused, and hence there is really no Explanationn; (3) Som Nathand Manmohan Singh are not named as accused in the F.I.R. though they were known to witnesses; (4) Manmohan Singh and Som Nath had declined to participate in the identification parade, and there is evidence that they were shown to the witnesses before the identification parade; (5) That no witnesses of the locality have been produced. Amrik Singh (P.W.3) and Jaswant Singh (P.W.7) are not residents of the locality and are chance witnesses; (6) That the evidence of the eye-witnesess, apart from the evidence of Bachittar Singh, was recorded 16 hours after the incident and there is no plausible Explanationn for delay; (7) Though the case of Bachittar Singh was that the eye-witnesses were present at time when his statement was recorded but the police did not record the statements of the other-eye-witnesses. This Explanationn was found by the Trial Court to be incorrect; (8) It was also found that the accused had no motive as the accused party belonged to the winning candidate and if at all the motive for picking up quarrel could be on the party of Bachittar Singh; (9) The site-plan does not show any blood at the alleged place of occurrence; (10) The occurrence had not taken place in the court-yard as alleged but in the street, near house No. C-175; (11) The Trial Court has also assailed the conduct of Public Witness s.; (12) The Trial Court also took the view that the medical evidence is opposed to the occular evidence. In this regard, the Trial Court took the view that according to the prosecution case, Prithipal Singh and Jit Singh had caught hold of the deceased, yet the doctor found 7' long scratch, skin deep at the back of the deceased which injury has not been explained by the occular evidence. Another injury on the left thumb, according to the Trial Court, has also not been explained although the deceased was caught hold of from left hand by accused Jit Singh; (13) Though Prithipal Singh and Jit Sing had been arrested immediately after the incident, yet no blood was found on their persons; (14) The learned Trial Court accepted the plea of alibi of Prithipal Singh and Jit Singh; (15) The learned Trial Court also took the view that during trial, the witnesses have introduced Som Nath as yielding 'karpan and having caused injury by 'karpan' to the deceased. (16) The learned Trial Court also took the view that the witnesses were procured later on.
(9) The scope of revision by a private party has been laid in numberous decisions! of the Supreme Court, including K. Chimaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others. : 3SCR412 , Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram, : 1973CriLJ1404 , Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raja and others v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another, : AIR1975SC1854 and State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and others. : 1979CriLJ594 .
(10) Some of the principles for determining the scope of revision against acquittal at the instance of a private party, as spelt out from the aforesaid decisions are:(i) where no appeal, has been filed, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the trial court takes-wrong view of law or mis-appreciates evidence; (ii) in dealing with revisions by private parties, the court cannot set aside an order to acquittal by re-appraisal of evidence in the absence of manifest error in procedure which vitiates the trial and (iii) revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases only like (a) where there is a glaring defect in procedure which has resulted in manifest injustice and (b) manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice like court having no jurisdiction to try or of wrongly shutting the evidence or material evidence being overlooked.
(11) Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there has been a manifest miscarriage of justice due to wrong appreciation of evidence. Elaborating this submission, the learned counsel submitted that the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved on irrelevant and filimsy considerations. He also submitted that the witnesses were not required to explain injury of Inderjit Singh in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(12) It will be noticed from the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that from paras 19 to 25 thereof, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discussed the evidence of each of the eye-witnesses individually and then discussed the evidence collectively in paras 26 to 37. In paras 38, 39 and 40, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dealt with the defense evidence. It cannot be said that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ignored any material evidence or bad shut out any evidence. His conclusions are based purely on his appreciation of the evidence. No case was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner where merely on wrong appreciation of evidence, court of revision had interfered with the order of acquittal.
(13) This case does not fall within the ambit of any of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court which have laid down various tests where a court of revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the verdict of acquittal. The decision is based purely on appreciation of entire evidence. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that appreciation of evidence is wrong and the eye-witnesses should have been believed. I do not consider that this Court has jurisdiction, on the facts of this case to interfere with the order of acquittal.
The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed