IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002. Date of decision:15.12.2008. Gurjeet Singh and another .. ..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. .. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioners:Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una dated 25.3.2002 in Criminal Appeal (RBT) No.14 of 2000 whereby he has rejected the appeal filed by the accused and upheld the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb dated 22.11.1999 convicting the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and giving them the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. It would be pertinent to mention that a learned Single Judge of this Court while admitting the Revision had issued notice to the appellants to show cause why in case of their conviction being maintained by this Court their sentence should not be enhanced. …2… The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.10.1998 at about 7 p.m. injured complainant Gurminder Singh had closed his Dhabha and was returning home. On the way he was accosted by the accused who gave him beating with sticks in furtherance of their common intention. The injured suffered a number of injuries. He was alone at that time. He managed to save himself from the accused and ran away from the spot. He went home and his mother then took him to the CHC Chintpurni. The matter was reported to the police. The police officials reached the hospital where the statement of the injured was recorded. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and challan was filed against the accused. The accused have been convicted by both the courts as mentioned hereinabove. The complainant PW-1 has supported what has been stated by him in the complaint. He has clearly stated that both the accused persons who were armed with ‘bamboo’ dandas had abused him and also beaten him with dandas. He suffered injuries on his tooth and other parts of the body. The version of the complainant has been supported by Smt.Rachna Devi PW-2 mother of the complainant. She states that when her son came home he was badly bleeding and on inquiry the injured had informed her that he had been beaten by the accused. She then took the injured to hospital. PW-7 Dr.Ashok Daroch states that he examined the complainant on 19.10.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. and found …3… four injuries on the persons of the accused. The injury to the tooth after reference to the dental surgeon was declared to be a grievous injury. The dentist Dr.Anshu Angra has been examined as PW-5. She has opined that the injuries could have been caused by dandas Ext.P-3 and P-4. No doubt there is no independent witness in the case. When the complainant was accosted he was alone and as such there is no question of any other independent witness being present. The complainant has suffered injuries and he attributed these injuries to the accused. These averments are supported by the medical evidence. There is no reason why the complainant would have falsely implicated the accused. The findings of the Courts below are totally based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law is involved. The legality or propriety of the proceedings is not in question. Therefore, there is no merit in the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioners and the same is accordingly rejected. However, as far as the notice for enhancement is concerned, keeping in view the fact that incident occurred more than 10 years back, I feel that at this stage it would not be appropriate to enhance the sentence. Therefore, notice for enhancement is also discharged. December 15, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge