TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.]. - Leave granted in all the above cases. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. The State and the complainant seek setting aside of the order dated 7-8-2003 of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment of conviction of the trial court and the appellate court passed against the respondent-accused for alleged offence under Section 324 and 452 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for seven days. 4. The facts leading to prosecution of the accused and their conviction and eventual acquittal by the High Court are as follows :- Complainant Smt. Satish Kaur Sahni and the convicted acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the complainant and brutally assaulting her. In all, five persons of the family of the accused were alleged to have participated in the incident which included parents, Kuldeep Anand, Bhagwant Kaur Anand and their three sons, Jagmohan Anand, Harminder Anand and Bhupinder Anand. The prosecution examined the complainant (PW-1), Jyoti Ahuja (PW-2), the neighbour who was present at the time of incident, son of the complainant Manpreet Sahni (PW-3) and Dr. Mahesh Kumar Advani (PW-4) who proved the medical report. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-5. The accused abjured the guilt and took the defence by examining DW-1 Abraham Samson Medhekar of their false involvement in the crime because of the past enmity between the families o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant have preferred these appeals by seeking leave. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra and learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi for the accused. 12. On behalf of the State, learned counsel points out from the relevant evidence on record that the High Court has overlooked vital evidence showing full implication of the accused and wrongly acquitted them by entering into re-appreciation of evidence. It is argued that the High Court exceeded its powers of revision under Section 397 of the CrPC. 13. On behalf of the accused, learned Senior Counsel Shri Tulsi made strenuous effort to support the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortance to the fact that joint complaint submitted on 6-5-1990 by the occupants of the building under their signatures to the Deputy Commissioner of Police does not stand proved as none of the signatories was examined as a witness in the trial. 18. The learned counsel for the State points out that the defence witness Abraham Samson Medhekar (DW-1) examined by the accused themselves was one of the twelve signatories to the said complaint made to the DCP. When confronted with copy of the complaint the witness (DW-1) had admitted its contents and his own signature. He, however, denied that the said complaint was forwarded to DCP. The statement of DW-1 in cross-examination itself therefore proves the fact of such incident to have taken pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....implication due to alleged incident of the complainant having not been able to purchase some property in competition with the accused party had not taken place in the immediate past. It could not be a ground to falsely implicate the accused after such a long period. Such defence plea based on alleged motive of the complainant is also unacceptable when the specific defence taken through deposition of DW-1 was involvement of complainant in the chit-fund business and alleged grudge over it with the accused party. 21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, it is sufficient to refer to and rely on the decision of this court in Dulichand v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1975 SC 1960] in which it is observed thus :- "The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perve....