Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Assault Case, Dismisses Revision Petitions as Time-Barred and Without Merit
Case Name: Ajeet Singh v. Inderjeet and Others; Ajeet Singh v. Vikash alias Patwari and Another
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: CRR-647-2023 & CRR-728-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed two connected criminal revision petitions filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused in an assault case. Justice Sumeet Goel held that the petitions were both barred by limitation and devoid of merit, observing that the Court, under Section 401(3) of the Cr.P.C., cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in its revisional jurisdiction. The Court also refused to condone the delay in filing, noting that the petitioner’s explanation was vague, false, and unsupported by evidence.
Summary: The complainant, Ajeet Singh, filed two criminal revision petitions against the common judgment dated September 20, 2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which had set aside the conviction and sentence dated February 3 and 7, 2017, imposed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahendergarh. The trial court had convicted six accused under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 325 IPC, sentencing them to a maximum of three years’ imprisonment for assaulting the complainant. The appellate court, however, acquitted all the accused, citing several evidentiary gaps.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the High Court’s revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are supervisory in nature and cannot be used to reverse an acquittal. The Court referred to Mahabir v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 120) and Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (2022) 13 SCC 115, reaffirming that the High Court cannot substitute an acquittal with conviction. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to justify a nine-day delay in lodging the FIR, provide credible medical evidence, or produce treatment records from Vivek Hospital, where the complainant claimed he was admitted. It also noted that the alleged fracture injury remained unsubstantiated due to lack of X-ray or radiological proof.
Additionally, the petitioner sought condonation of a 65-day delay in filing the revisions, citing his service in the Army and lack of communication from counsel. The Court found this explanation unconvincing and inconsistent with the dates on record, holding that the plea of delay was factually false and legally untenable.
Decision: The High Court dismissed both criminal revision petitions, upholding the acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. It held that there was no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and that the petitions were barred by limitation. Pending applications were also disposed of.