CRR No.1813 of 2005(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRR No.1813 of 2005 (O & M) Date of decision : 18.7.2011 Harbans Kaur ........Petitioner Vs. Ashok Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr.Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3 --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition filed at the instance of the complainant challenges judgment of acquittal dated 28.2.2005 recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. Learned counsel contends that document Ex.DA is a compromise effected in relation to an incident that took place in the year 1994 and not the present incident in regard to which the respondents were tried. Because of mis-reading of evidence, it is clearly established, the case needs to be remanded back to Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh for decision afresh. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Para 14 of the impugned judgment discusses the evidence that has come on record. Out of 9 witnesses, 2 witnesses viz; PW-1 Harbans Kaur and PW-2 Surinder Kumar were examined by the prosecution. No independent witness has been examined although the incident took place in a street during day-time in a residential area. The complaint Ex.PA authored by PW-1 does not indicate that the accused party also suffered injuries in the scuffle on account of which FIR CRR No.1813 of 2005(O & M) -2- was lodged. In cross examination, however, PW-1 admits that accused party had also received injuries, including Smt. Dulari-mother of accused Ashok Kumar. PW-2, however, does not state that the injuries were suffered by the accused also. PW-1 has given a statement that both the parties were booked in proceedings initiated under Section 107/51 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. PW-2, however, has denied the fact and has stated that only accused party was proceeded against in the said proceedings. PW-2 admits the presence of independent witnesses namely; Chhottu, Bhabhi, Raj Kishore, Babu Ram and others. As noticed above, none has been examined. Inconsistency in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 goes to the root of the case and materially affects the quality of evidence produced by the prosecution. In such circumstances, support from an independent witness was required so as to establish the prosecution case. The said conclusion drawn by the trial Court does not call for any interference in these proceedings. A possible view has been taken which cannot be termed as illegal. Even if document Ex.PA is ignored from consideration, in view of the inconsistent evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, in the considered opinion of this Court, conviction of the respondent-accused could not have been recorded. No ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 18.7.2011 akm