IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2003 Date of Decision: 10th August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Sudershan Kumar & another ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik and Mr. R.K. Thakur, Addl. Advocate Generals. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction passed by both the Courts below under Sections 341, 325, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the purpose of deciding this revision petition, I am not discussing the entire evidence in detail. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW3 Balbir Singh lodged First Information report Ext.PW3/A stating that on 26.7.1997 he was assaulted and beaten up by the petitioners herein. MLC Ext.PW5/A was prepared and the petitioner was referred to the Radiologist for X-ray 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 examination to ascertain whether there was any grievous hurt/fracture caused by the petitioners herein. 3. In revisional powers, this Court cannot look into the entire factual aspects of the case. However, two points which have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner may be noticed. First that the X-ray reports Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C do not relate to the injured as the X-ray has been taken on 25th July, 1997 and the complainant was beaten up on 26th July, 1997 as such, the X-ray could not be predated. This raises a serious doubt as to whether there was any grievous hurt caused to the complainant, or not. I am not pronouncing upon anything on the factual aspect of the matter save and except the fact that the above narration of facts raises a serious doubt as to the medical evidence. I also find it a bit strange that PW1 Dr. O.P. Ramdev who was supposed to have proved the radiological examination of the injured, stated that radiological examination of the injured was carried out on 25th July, 199,7 which is bewildering. 4. Learned counsel also submits that in case the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is not established then even assuming that injuries mentioned in Ext.PW5/A are established, the petitioners were only liable to be tried by the Panchayat, as on the date when the offence was committed, the area/site of offence was in the Panchayat area and according to the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 it was the Panchayat which had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case in accordance with law and especially by Section 35 of the Act. From the record, I find that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Court below. 3 5. In these circumstances, I deem it fit and proper that the case be sent for re-trial to the learned Sessions Judge who will decide the matter afresh on the evidence on record. This order has been passed with reluctance, considering the fact that incident occurred in the year 1997 and now after a period of 13 years this case has been taken up for consideration by this Court. Petition stands disposed of. The case alongwith entire record be sent back to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala who will decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 6. Parties to appear before the learned Court on 13th December, 2010. A further direction is issued that learned Judge shall dispose of the case within a period of six weeks from the receipt of record. August 10th, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge