Criminal Revision No. 1789 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1789 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.8.2009 Surinder Singh ...Petitioner vs State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 15.4.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Jagadhri, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the offences under Section 323, 324, 325, 427, 34 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.1998, HC Randhir Singh received information that Surinder Singh and Satish Kumar are admitted in Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. Thereafter, he along with other police officials went there and recorded the statement of Surinder Singh complainant to the effect that on the eve of Karwa Choth, while he was returning on his motorcycle from the shop of Kamal Studio near Camp Chowk, Main Bazar, he was caught hold by Ashok Kumar, Satish Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Kaka, who were armed with dandas, knife and scissors in their hands. All of them gave injuries on the person of the petitioner. The hairs of the petitioner were also cut by the accused and his motorcycle was also damaged. The complainant was rescued by his father Hazura Singh and brother-in-law Parveen Singh who came at the place of occurrence by chance. Thereafter, formal FIR was registered. The site plan was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After completion of all other formalities, challan was presented against the accused- respondents. They were charged for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 427, read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW1 Narinder Kumar, PW2 Dr. Ajesh Goel, PW3 Dr. Vinay Chaudhary, PW4 ASI Randhir Singh Investigating Officer, PW5 Surinder Singh and PW6 Parveen Kumar. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondents stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. Criminal Revision No. 1789 of 2008 -2- The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding that the case against them was not free from reasonable doubt. Feeling dis-satisfied with the verdict of trial court, the petitioner-complainant came up in revision to this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the petitioner in the form of statements of the witnesses as well as the medical record and acquitted the accused-respondents, which need interference by this court. He submitted that PW2 Dr. Ajesh Goel found five injures on the person of the complainant and also proved MLR Ex. PW2/A. As per the statement of PW3 Dr. Vinay Chanudary, there was fracture of Nasal bone. He proved his report Ex. PW3/B, and X-ray films, Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this medical evidence is sufficient to hold the accused-respondents guilty of the offences beyond doubt for causing injuries to the complainant. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. In his testimony, PW2 Dr. Ajesh Goel deposed that he had conducted the medico legal examination of the injured and found five injures which were caused by sharp edged weapon. He, however, did not advise any X-ray of the injuries. Out of the said injuries, one injury was found of nasal fracture but X-ray of this injury was conducted after two days. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that the injuries no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 can be suffered by falling on a hard surface and injury no. 4 can be sustained by falling on a sharp object. It was also not explained by the prosecution that when the fracture of Nasal bone was detected on the person of the injured, why X-ray was not advised by the earlier doctor and conducted on the next day. It was also on the record that no such type of injury was mentioned/opined in the MLR by the said doctor. The Investigating Officer, ASI Randhir Singh, who had appeared as PW4, in his cross-examination has admitted that during investigation, it came to light that Satish Kumar caused injuries to the complainant but he did not know anything about the injuries. He further admitted that he did not see injuries at the time when the doctor declared the injured unfit for making the statement. When he has not seen the injuries on the person of the complainant, it cannot be said that the version got recorded by the complainant is true. The other lacuna found by the learned court below in the prosecution case while acquitting the accused-respondents was that when the occurrence took place, the complainant was coming from the shop of photographer after taking the video film. The prosecution has not examined the owner of that studio nor any such film was recovered by the police from the spot. Criminal Revision No. 1789 of 2008 -3- The other flaw in the prosecution evidence found by the learned court below while acquitting the accused-respondents was that the occurrence took place in the main bazar and as per the version of the complainant, he was dragged into the shop of the accused. Nowadays, the bazar is a busy place. If such an incident took place in a busy place, why no independent witness was joined by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused-respondents. The learned court below has also rightly not taken into consideration the deposition of PW6 Parveen Kumar, who had reached the spot by chance. He is the interested witness being brother-in-law of the complainant. By relying upon his testimony, it cannot be said that the learned court below had wrongly acquitted the accused. He deposed that accused Ashok Kumar was having the scissors but Satish Kumar cut the hairs of the complainant. The prosecution had not effected recovery of hairs from the spot nor incorporated it in the MLR. Further more the petitioner is a convict under Section 304-B IPC for causing death of his wife. The accused in the present case are the family members of the deceased-wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is presently on bail pending appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Heavy onus was on prosecution to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, and in the present case the prosecution having failed to discharge this onus, learned trial court rightly acquitted the respondents. There being no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. 13.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge