Criminal Revision No.603 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.603 of 2006. Date of Decision: 4.3.2011. Ashok Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 9. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated December 13th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala, whereby, respondents No.2 to 9 were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 184 dated September 6th, 2003 under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. 2. A Guga Mari Basera (a religious function) was being held in village Uplana in the month of September, 2003. On September 3rd, 2003 Anil Kumar (PW-5) came in the function under the influence of liquor. The persons attending the function requested him to go away from the place of worship. After 2 days on September 5th, 2003 he again came in an inebriated condition. The congregation present in the function again requested him to leave the place but he did not. The persons present in the function gave shoe beating to Criminal Revision No.603 of 2006 2 Anil Kumar. In the melee Sandip, one Anil son of Uma Kant, Anil (PW-5) and Ashok Kumar-petitioner received injuries. From the side of the respondent, Sanjiv Kumar and Hans Raj also received injuries. On the statement of Sanjiv Kumar, cross case was registered against Ashok Kumar-petitioner, Sandip Kumar and Anil Kumar son of Uma Kant. The trial Court acquitted the complainant and the respondents as well. 3. In this case, the alleged occurrence took place at 10 p.m. in the night and there were more than 100 persons present on the spot. The complainant party was asked to leave the prayer meeting but they did not heed to the request. Therefore, the people present there got agitated and caused injuries to them. However, the identity of the culprits could not be established rather Sanjiv Kumar and Hans Raj-respondents also received injuries in that melee. Prosecution failed to prove that the injury caused to Ashok fell within the mischief of Section 307 IPC because no evidence worth the name was led by the prosecution to prove it to be dangerous to life. Dr. Anuradha Raj (PW-11) and Dr. Rajesh Chhabra (PW-14)-Medical Officers of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh deposed that injuries received on the person of Ashok Kumar were simple in nature. The prosecution also failed to prove the delay of 10 days in recording the statement of Anil Kumar. The explanation put forth by the prosecution was that he was admitted in the hospital but from the medical record it was found to be factually wrong. 4. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed. 4.3.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE