IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2005 Date of decision: November 19, 2010 Rattan Chand and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Criminal Revision No. 487 of 2005 Rattan Chand and another .. Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of criminal revision petition Nos. 486 and 487 of 2005 having arisen out of the same judgment. Seven accused namely Sudesh Kumar, Balbir Singh, Mohan Lal, Jai Singh, Subash Chander, Puran Chand and Jagdish were tried, convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 148/149 IPC. However, they preferred two appeals before the Appellate Court. Both the appeals were accepted vide judgment dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. Though, the State has not preferred any revision petition, yet, the complainant has preferred two revision petitions against the order of acquittal. Having perused the records of the case, the Appellate Court appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. The occurrence in the case has taken place on 13.10.1993, but the FIR was registered after two days i.e. on 15.10.1993. There is unexplained delay in Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2005 & Criminal Revision No. 487 of 2005 -2- lodging the FIR which remained unexplained by the prosecution. Rattan Chand (PW2) is the brother of the complainant Sukhdial Singh and is an interested witness. Despite the adequate opportunity available to the prosecution to examine and cite independent witness, no such witness was cited or examined. Dr. Sudeep Sharma, who had conducted the medico- legal examination of the injured Sukhdial and Rattan Lal, has not been examined. Dr. Vinay Sharma (PW7) could only prove the signature or handwriting of Dr. Sudeep Sharma, but the opinion made by Sudeep Sharma could not be proved by Dr. Vinay Sharma as he was neither the member of the team at the time when medico-legal examination was conducted nor he himself had examined the injured. Accused Sudesh Kumar and Waryam also sustained injuries in the case but the prosecution has failed to explain injuries on their person, therefore, non explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, in the given circumstances of the case, is certainly fatal to the prosecution version and the inference would be drawn that all was not well with the case. The Appellate Court appears to have taken right view of the matter. After examining the entire evidence, no such illegality, irregularity or perversity has been pointed out which may warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that if two views are possible then the view favourable to the accused would be accepted. In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, finding no merit in both the revision petitions, the same are dismissed. November 19, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge