CRR No. 1103 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1103 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.07.2010 Raja Ram ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. J P Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. N K Sanghi, Advocate for respondent No. 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a revision petition against the judgement dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh thereby acquitting the accused-respondents No. 2 to 7 of the charges framed against them under Sections 323,326, 34 of Indian Penal Code by giving the benefit of doubt in their favour. Facts as per the complaint are that complainant Raja Ram son of Parbhati Lal, resident of Daroli is a labourer by profession. His father is CRR No. 1103 of 2009 2 chokiwdar of Village.On 28.06.1999, at about 8.00 am, Ram Savrup, Sarpanch and Rajeram, Panch, came to the house of complainant and asked them to stop the people from cutting trees. The father of the complainant, who is Chowkidar of the Village, was not present at home. Accordingly, the complainant/petitioner went to Jungle and saw the accused persons cutting trees. The complainant protested, on which, the accused party got annoyed and beat up the present petitioner/complainant. FIR was also registered at his behest. However, a cross case was also registered against the present petitioner. Taking into account all factors and lacunae in the prosecution case and legal position, the trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them vide judgement dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Sub Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh. Similarly, the petitioner and others, who were accused in a cross case, were also acquitted vide separate judgement dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh. While arguing the present revision petition against the order of acquittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acquittal of the accused on the ground that Ram Savrup Sarpanch and Raje Ram Panch who sent the petitioner in the field, were not even made the witnesses by the prosecution is totally wrong as both the aforesaid witnesses were not the witnesses of the place of occurrence. Secondly, a wrong finding had been recorded that the occurrence took place over the property of the accused and not over the property of the complainant as there is no such evidence to show that the occurrence took place in the property of the accused. Thirdly, the medical report has been wrongly appreciated. CRR No. 1103 of 2009 3 Heard. The Trial Court while acquitting the accused persons duly recorded that there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police by 7-8 days, which has not been explained by the prosecution as the injured had regained conscious on the same day when he received the alleged injury over his right eye. This fact has been admitted by the complainant in his cross examination as PW-1. Secondly, it was also not disputed that in the same incident, the accused party also sustained injuries. As per MLR, there were as many as 18 injuries on the persons of Lal Chand, Surender, Daya Nand and Babu Lal. There were also two factures on the person of Lal Chand and Daya Chand. The same were not explained. Whereas, there were only two injuries on the side of the complainant. As such, the injury on the right eye of the complainant does appear to have been caused in the manner as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the well settled proposition of law that if the injuries suffered by the accused at the time of occurrence are not explained, the Court can draw an inference that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in view of the fact that the prosecution has suppressed the very genesis and origin of the occurrence. Moreover, a finding has also been recorded that a fight took place on the property that was in possession of the accused and therefore, it could not be established that the accused were the aggressor/ assaulter. As such, the accused has a right to protect their lives as well as property against CRR No. 1103 of 2009 4 any eminent danger. As per the complaint, Ram Savrup Sarpanch and Raje Ram Panch were responsible in sending the respondent to the place of occurrence. The same witnesses were not examined. Thus, the story put forward by the prosecution in the FIR has not been corroborated. The eye witness Bhoop Singh has also been given up by the prosecution. Thus, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused persons. As such, no fault can be found with the judgement dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh acquitting the accused-respondents No. 2 to 7 of the charges framed against them under Sections 323,326,34 of Indian Penal Code by giving the benefit of doubt in their favour. No merit. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 21.07.2010 mohan