Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.8.2009 Chander Bhan ..... Petitioner vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J. The present revision is against the order of acquittal of respondents no. 2 to 4 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, on 21.3.2007 in cross-version recorded on the statement of petitioner Chander Bhan in FIR No. 162 dated 9.6.1998 under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC. The facts of the prosecution case as have been noticed in the trial court judgment are that on receipt of information on 9.6.1998 regarding admission of the petitioner in General Hospital, Narwana, HC Balbir Singh reached there. After taking the medical opinion regarding fitness of the injured to make the statement, he recorded the statement of petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that on 8.6.1998 at about 9.00 p.m., he was returning from his fields. On the way, he found that Vakil (respondent no.3) along with 3-4 persons was consuming liquor. Vakil invited the petitioner to consume liquor but he refused to do so and proceeded towards his house. When he reached in the street situated in front of the house of Vakil, Vakil along with his wife Kelo Devi (respondent no. 2) and sister- in-law Birmati (respondent no.4) waylaid him and said that he will have to face the consequences of abusing them. Kelo Devi inflicted a lathi blow on his left shoulder. Accused Birmati inflicted a Jelli blow to him whereas accused Vakil had also inflicted Jelli blow in his head. On hearing the alarm of the petitioner, his father Didar Singh reached at the spot. Thereafter, the petitioner party snatched the lathi from the offenders and inflicted lathi injuries to them in self defence. The accused party then fled away from the spot along with their weapons while threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. It was prayed that the matter be registered and action be taken against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused-respondents. They were charged for offence punishable under Section Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (2) 323, 506, 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined four witnesses, namely, PW1 Chander Bhan the complainant, PW2 HC Balbir Singh the Investigating Officer, PW3 Didar Singh, and PW4 Dr. D.R. Kayath. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-respondents stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence, they have not led any defence. Considering the evidence brought on record in the form of statements of witnesses and documents, learned trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them. Feeling aggrieved, against the order of acquittal, the petitioner filed the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the accused-respondents was proved beyond doubt by the complainant who was examined as PW1. He has clearly stated that the injuries received by him are caused by the accused-respondents and there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony which was fully corroborated by PW3 Didar Singh. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that PW4 Dr. D.R.Kayath, who medico legally examined the petitioner, had found that the duration of injuries was within 24 hours and weapon used was blunt in nature. The statement of this witness had fully corroborated the version of the complainant but the court below has failed to appreciate the same and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper-book, I find no merit in the present revision. As has been said by the complainant that when he was coming from the fields, the accused Vakil was consuming liquor with 4-5 persons and he has asked the complainant for company but he refused and without staying there he proceeded towards his house. The complainant alleged that when he reached near the house of the accused, Vakil along with his wife Kelo Devi and sister-in-law Birmati had waylaid him. It was rightly held by the court below that when accused Vakil was left behind by the petitioner, there was no occasion for him to reach at the place of occurrence before him. Moreover, the petitioner had not taken liquor. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was another passage or that the accused had left the place earlier than him after taking liquor and the petitioner had stayed on the way. He has also not explained how the accused had reached earlier than him at the place of occurrence. According to the complainant's own version, his father PW3 Didar Singh had reached at the spot when he raised raula. Thus, he cannot be said to be Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (3) an eye-witness to the occurrence. The court below has rightly discarded the testimony of these witnesses and acquitted the accused-persons. As regards the testimony of doctor witness is concerned, I have perused his statement which is placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-1. No doubt, he has deposed that he has examined the petitioner and found injuries on his person and weapon used was blunt in nature. However, in his cross- examination, he had stated that the injury of the person of Chander Bhan can be caused by felling on hard, rough surface. So, it cannot be said that the these injuries have been caused by the accused in the said occurrence. On the basis of the material placed on record, the learned trial court found that the prosecution had failed to produce the persons who were consuming liquor with accused Vakil to prove that the complainant was invited by the accused to consume liquor. This could be of some relevance to support prosecution version. In the absence of such material witnesses and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses produced, the court below, thus, cannot be said to have gone wrong in acquitting the accused-respondents. In view of the above discussions, the revision petition is dismissed. 27.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge