Criminal Revision No.83 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.83 of 2003 Date of Decision 01.09.2010 Bahadur Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Karnail Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Shekhon, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.8-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment of acquittal dated 06.09.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc.), Sangrur. Respondents No.1 to 7-accused (herein referred as 'the respondents') were tried for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 325, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and on trial, they were acquitted. The allegations in brief are that on 25.07.1998, Bahadur Singh complainant-petitioner (herein referred as 'the complainant') informed the police that he alongwith Baldev Singh son of Bhajan Singh was going from Barnala towards village Thuliwal on scooter make Chetak bearing registration No.PCE-4721. At about 10:30 a.m., when they reached near the area of village Amla Singh Wala then one Maruti Car, driven by Karnail Singh son of Bakshish Singh, resident of village Thuliwal came from the side of Barnala and stopped. Jagjit Singh @ Joga and Karnail Singh armed Criminal Revision No.83 of 2003 2 with iron rods, Saudagar Singh armed with Gandhala and Gurcharan Singh armed with rifle came down from the car. Saudagar Singh raised lalkara that Bahadur Singh be not spared. In the meantime, Amarjit Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Harbhajan Singh came there. Out of fear complainant ran towards the field after throwing the scooter. Gurcharan Singh threatened him to stop otherwise he would be wiped off. Thereafter, Gurcharan Singh tried to fire a shot at the complainant. However, the latter caught hold of the rifle with his hands and turned the same towards the sky. Jagjit Singh @ Joga gave a rod blow on the left leg of complainant whereas Saudagar Singh gave 2-3 gandhala blows on his right arm and Karnail Singh gave 2-3 rod blows on the right arm of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, Baldev Singh came, who had witnessed the occurrence. However, on seeing many persons, coming from the fields, the accused ran away towards Barnala with their vehicles and the arms respectively. On the aforesaid statement of Bahadur Singh, case was registered and investigated. Ultimately, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused. On trial, they were acquitted. The trial Court has acquitted the accused primarily on the following grounds:- 1. The injuries suffered by the complainant Bahadur Singh were superficiated in nature. Same could be received by him by fall from the scooter and the accused were involved on account of the enmity with the complainant. 2. The injured at the time of medico legal examination at 11:55 a.m. on 25.07.1998 gave the duration of the injuries more Criminal Revision No.83 of 2003 3 than 6 hours whereas according to the injured, occurrence had taken place just one hour and 25 minutes prior to the examination. Bahadur Singh (PW3) and Baldev Singh (PW4), while appearing in the witness box, have changed the place of occurrence and there are serious contradiction in their statements. Bahadur Singh (PW3) has stated that Saudagar Singh was holding a gun and he had tried to fire shot whereas Baldev Singh (PW4) has stated that Gurcharan Singh was holding rifle and he had tried to fire a shot. Bahadur Singh (PW3) has stated that he was going from Thuliwal to Baranala whereas another witness Baldev Singh (PW4) has stated that he was coming from Barnala to Thuliwala. These contradictions seriously effect the prosecution case. Even otherwise, in case of acquittal, the Court is reluctant to interfere unless the judgment is based on mis-appreciation and misreading of evidence and no such error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out which may result into miscarriage of justice. It is well settled by now that if two views are possible then the view in favour of the accused would be accepted. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 01.09.2010 mamta-II