Prit Pal Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M) -1-









IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


254


CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.09.2026

Prit Pal Kaur (deceased) through her LR Maninder Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate
for the petitioner.


Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate
for respondents No. 4 to 9.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1.
The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the judgment dated 11.05.2006, passed by the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) , Fast Track Court, Ludhiana
in case arising out of FIR No.159 dated 24.07.2005, registered under
Sections 457, 380, 342, 452, 427, 436, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police
Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana, whereby respondents No.2 to 9 have been
acquitted of the charges framed against them.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis the
statement recorded by the petitioner (since deceased) alleging therein that on
22.07.1995 at about 10.00 p.m., she was informed that a large number of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M) -2-









persons had entered into her factory situated at 642-B, Industrial Area,
Ludhiana. It was alleged that Kamal Singh, Joginder Singh, Harbans Singh
and others, accompanied by more than 100 armed persons, broke open the
locks of the factory and took away machinery, cash box and other goods
with the help of trucks and cranes. It was further alleged that the workers
were confined in a room, the factory articles were damaged and certain
documents were put on fire. The petitioner also alleged that despite
informing Inspector Shamsher Singh, who was posted as SHO, Police
Station Division No.6, Ludhiana, no prompt action was taken and the FIR
was ultimately registered on 24.07.1995.
3. During investigation, different police officers investigated the
matter from time to time. Subsequently, on the directions of the
Government, PW-23 Varinder Kumar, IPS, conducted a re-investigation. In
his report, he expressed serious reservations regarding the earlier
investigation and recommended departmental action against certain police
officers. He also recorded his observations after inspecting the factory in the
presence of a Judicial Magistrate and an Executive Magistrate. After
completion of investigation and usual formalities, final report was submitted
before the learned trial Court and trial had commenced.
4. After trial, the learned trial Court examined the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and the defence evidence and came to the conclusion
that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused. The
principal reason recorded by the trial Court was that the material prosecution
witnesses had made substantial improvements over their earlier statements
and that the evidence did not reliably establish the alleged occurrence or the
involvement of the accused. Therefore, the accused/respondents No. 2 to 9
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M) -3-









were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved thereof, the
petitioner/complainant had filed this revision petition. During the pendency
of the petition, she has died. She is now being represented through her legal
heir Maninder Singh.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned
trial Court had wrongly discarded the prosecution evidence. The FIR itself
had been delayed because of the conduct of Inspector Shamsher Singh, who
was himself subsequently arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel further
argued that the subsequent investigation conducted by PW-23 Varinder
Kumar, IPS, clearly showed that the earlier investigation was one-sided and
that the accused, in connivance with Inspector Shamsher Singh, had forcibly
taken away the machinery from the factory. It is also argued that the learned
trial Court failed to properly appreciate the report and statement of PW-23
and wrongly relied upon the earlier investigation. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further argued that PW-23 had inspected the factory in the
presence of the Judicial Magistrate and Executive Magistrate and had found
the factory in a damaged condition with documents burnt and machinery
missing. This evidence supported the prosecution case and the learned trial
Court erred in ignoring the same. It is also argued that the material collected
during re-investigation ought to have been brought on record and considered
by the learned trial Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
accepted and the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside,
thereby convicting the respondents/accused for the offences for which they
were charged.
6. Learned State counsel has also advanced submissions in support
of the case of the petitioner.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M) -4-









7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused-
respondents argued that the judgment of the trial Court is based upon a
proper appreciation of the evidence and does not suffer from any illegality. It
is argued that there was a long-standing dispute between the family members
regarding the ownership and possession of the factory and machinery and
that, pursuant to a compromise, Maninder Singh had himself removed his
machinery from the disputed factory. It is further argued that the prosecution
witnesses made material improvements in Court and that the alleged
eyewitnesses did not give a consistent account of the occurrence. Learned
counsel for the respondents also argued that the report of PW-23 could not
take the place of substantive evidence against the accused. It is submitted
that the learned trial Court had given cogent reasons for acquitting the
accused and that, in a revision against acquittal, interference was not
warranted merely because another view of the evidence was possible. Hence,
it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed, thereby upholding the
impugned judgment of acquittal.
8. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel
for the parties, besides perusing the material placed on record.
9. The first and foremost question is whether the view taken by the
learned trial Court is such which calls for interference in revisional
jurisdiction. In my considered view, the answer has to be in the negative.
The prosecution case primarily rests upon the statement of PW-11 Pritpal
Kaur. However, the learned trial Court noticed that she made several
material improvements in her deposition. Facts regarding the manner in
which she allegedly received information from Ranjit Singh, her going to the
factory with him, the alleged threats extended by Inspector Shamsher Singh,
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M) -5-









the burning of the record and several other important circumstances were
found missing from her earlier statement. The learned trial Court, therefore,
did not find her testimony reliable. This finding cannot be said to be without
basis. The evidence of Ranjit Singh also does not provide the necessary
corroboration. PW-12 DSP Gurjit Singh stated in cross-examination that
Ranjit Singh had told him that he came to know about the occurrence on the
following morning. The learned trial Court, therefore, found it unsafe to rely
upon Ranjit Singh as an eyewitness.
10. Similarly, PW-14 Gurpartap Singh, though he stated that he had
seen Kamal Singh, Harbans Singh and Joginder Singh at the spot, was found
to be an unreliable witness for several reasons. The learned trial Court
noticed inconsistencies regarding the presence of the police at the spot and
the delayed recording of his statement. His evidence, therefore, could not
safely be made the basis of conviction. There is yet another important
circumstance. PW-1 Harbhajan Singh and PW-3 Rattan Singh were
confronted with their earlier statements regarding the compromise between
the brothers and the removal of machinery by Maninder Singh pursuant to
that arrangement. The learned trial Court found that this aspect created
serious doubt about the allegation that the accused had forcibly removed the
machinery. It is true that the subsequent report of PW-23 Varinder Kumar,
IPS, raises serious questions regarding the manner in which the earlier
investigation was conducted. His report records that there was delay in
registration of the FIR and also makes allegations regarding the conduct of
Inspector Shamsher Singh and other investigating officers. However, the
said report, by itself, cannot prove the guilt of the accused. The Court has to
examine the substantive evidence led during trial against each accused.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M) -6-









11. The physical condition of the factory noticed by PW-23 also
cannot, by itself, establish who had caused the damage, removed the
machinery or burnt the documents. The existence of damage or missing
machinery is one thing; proof that these acts were committed by the accused
in the manner alleged in the prosecution case is another.
12. The learned trial Court also noticed that there was a pre-existing
dispute between the parties regarding the ownership and possession of the
factory. The defence case regarding the compromise and removal of
machinery was not wholly without support. The prosecution evidence itself
brought the said dispute and the compromise on record. In these
circumstances, the possibility of a dispute regarding possession and removal
of machinery could not be ruled out.
13. The argument that the police investigation was defective also
does not by itself justify conviction. A defective investigation may be
relevant while appreciating the evidence but the prosecution still has to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through reliable
evidence.
14. It is also necessary to keep in mind the limited scope of
revisional jurisdiction in a case arising out of acquittal. The Supreme Court
in C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas, 2024 Law Finder (SC) 2620 , has
held that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C.,
the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
If the acquittal is found to be wrongful, the appropriate course, where
permissible, is to remit the matter for fresh consideration and re-appreciation
in accordance with law. Reference can also be made to Krishnan and others
v. M. Shanmugam and another, 2025 Law Finder (SC) 2424 , wherein the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No. 1905 of 2006 (O&M) -7-









Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the same position with reference
to Section 401(3) Cr.P.C., has specifically held that even where the High
Court is convinced about wrongful acquittal, it cannot itself order conviction
in revision.
15. In the present case, however, the matter does not even warrant
remand. The learned trial Court has examined the material witnesses and has
given reasons for rejecting their evidence. The deficiencies noticed by the
learned trial Court are not merely technical. There are material
improvements, contradictions and circumstances creating doubt regarding
the prosecution version. The conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court
are, therefore, a possible view of the evidence and cannot be termed
perverse. Merely because the subsequent investigating officer took a
different view of the matter, the same cannot be made the sole basis for
interfering with an acquittal. The Court cannot substitute suspicion for proof,
particularly when the accused have already been acquitted after a full-
fledged trial.
16. For the reasons recorded above, no ground is made out for
interference with the judgment dated 11.05.2006 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) , Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. The
present criminal revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment
of acquittal dated 11.05.2006 is affirmed.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.
07.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Waseem R. Waseem Waseem R. R. Ansari R. Ansari Ansari Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document