IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2106 of 2005 Date of decision: December 03, 2010 Paramjit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda accepting the appeal qua Jalandhar Singh and Baljit Singh and dismissing the appeal qua Paramjit Singh against the judgment dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, convicting them (all the accused) under Sections 323/325/34 IPC and sentencing them accordingly. The allegations against the accused are that on 21.7.2001 at about 3.30 p.m. Sukhjinder Singh injured, driver by profession was sitting on a platform of canal minor. In the meantime, accused Baljit Singh and Jalandhar Singh empty handed and Paramjit Singh alias Pamma armed with takua came and caused injuries to him. The injured raised alarm at which the accused fled away with their respective weapons. The injured was then shifted to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, for medical examination. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused was charged for the offence under Sections 325/323/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Sukhjinder Singh complainant (PW1), Surjit Singh (PW2), Dr. B.P. Bansal (PW3), Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg (PW4), HC Kuldip Singh (PW5), ASI Bahadur Singh (PW6) and Dr. H.L. Garg (PW7). Criminal Revision No. 2106 of 2005 -2- When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Raj Kumar (DW1), Gobind Kumar (DW2) and Jagjit Singh (DW3). The trial resulted into conviction of Parmjit Singh and acquittal of Baljit Singh and Jalandhar Singh. Arguments heard. Record perused. Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg (PW4) who had medico-legally examined the injured opined that Sukhjinder Singh had suffered as many as ten injuries caused with blunt weapon. The injuries are said to have been caused with the blunt side of the kulhari. All the other accused have been acquitted for the reasons that they were empty handed and their participation in the crime was doubtful. On x-ray examination of the injured, a fracture of shaft of ulna in the lower third was found, therefore, this injury No.6 was declared as grievous in nature. It has also come in evidence that the right lower incisor central and lateral incisor were missing from the socket and fresh bleeding around the socket was present and small clots in the sockets of the missing teeth were present. The prosecution case stands supported by the injured complainant Sukhjinder Singh (PW1), his father Surjit Singh (PW2), Dr. B.P. Bansal Dental Surgeon (PW3). No plausible defence has been led. Both the courts below returned the concurrent findings of fact with regard to truthfulness of the prosecution version. Two accused were acquitted only on the ground that their participation in the crime was doubtful. That apart, it has been brought to my notice that the accused Paramjit Singh alias Pamma has already undergone the entire sentence and he has been released after he was awarded some remissions. Any way, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. December 03, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge