Criminal Revision No.1421 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1421 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:- 13.9.2010 Harvinder ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the petitioner. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) Criminal Misc. Nos.26837-38 of 2010 Both the applications allowed. Annexure R-1 to R-3 are taken on record. Criminal Revision No.1421 of 2010 The present revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 03.2.2010 in FIR No.49 dated 3.6.2009, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Bapoli, District Panipat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief allegations are that on 1.6.2009 complainant Harvinder alongwith his father Kishan Chand was present in his house. After hearing noise they came out of the house and observed that Om Parkash and Vijay Pal were beating Pawan. Om Parkash Criminal Revision No.1421 of 2010 -2- and Vijay Pal gave lalkara to Kishan Chand. Om Parkash embraced Kishan Chand and Vijay Pal gave a lathi blow in the head of Kishan Chand. Kishan Chand fell down on the ground and after Parveen and Arvind reached the spot, accused ran away. Kishan Chand succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. After police investigation, challan against the accused Om Parkash and Vijay Pal was filed for offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. They did not support the prosecution version, hence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with by learned trial Court. It is a case of no evidence. Even complainant did not support the prosecution version. Hence, learned trial Court was having no other alternative but to acquit the accused. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in acquitting the accused. There is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. September 13, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE