Crl.Rev No1741 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No1741 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.08.2011 Phusa Ram ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.Jindal Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This revision petition has arisen out of judgment of acquittal dated 29.3.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. The allegations against the accused (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), are that on 11.11.2002 at about 4.30 PM, the complainant Phusa Ram was sitting in a room at his well. When he came out of the room the accused/respondents Rohtash, Parkash, Sunder and Babu Lal came at the spot. Sunder and Babu Lal caught him and Prakash gave lathi blows on his legs, Rohtash slapped and gave fist blows. On raising hue and cry, Bhanwar Singh and Ramji Lal came there. At this, accused fled away. Case was registered and investigated. On trial accused/respondents were acquitted. Arguments heard. Records perused. The occurrence took place on 11.11.2002, whereas Medico Crl.Rev No1741 of 2010 2 Legal Report reveals that the injured was examined on 11.10.2002. Though the counsel for the victim has urged that date 11.10.2002 has been inserted by mistake but it is not believable because when Dr.Mahesh Kumar (PW 1) while appearing in the witness box he reiterated the date of examination as 11.10.2002 and it was not got clarified from him that the date was actually 11.11.2002 and not 11.10.2002. Statement of the complainant is also contradictory. He while appearing on 17.3.2005 though has not given any date of occurrence but has deposed that the incident had taken place about 2 years and 3 months back which means that the occurrence had taken place in the month of December or January, 2003, whereas the occurrence had taken place in November, 2002. Similarly, the spot witness Bhanwar Singh has stated that incident had taken place about 6 years back. Learned counsel for the victim has submitted that the injury which was found to be grievous in nature was due to fracture of tooth but no such injury has been attributed to any of the accused. Though the complainant has stated that he suffered injuries on his legs but according to MLR there is no injury on the legs. Thus, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly taken view of the matter and the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Finding no illegality or perversity much less any such infirmity in the judgment, no interference is required. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 10.08.2011 Judge rp