Crl. Revision No. 141 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.141 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2011 Maya Ram and others ……Petitioners Versus Sajjan and others …….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.5-State. ***** A.N. Jindal, J. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 of the offences under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC. The case appears to have been committed to the Court of Sessions on the grounds that an offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, had been committed by the accused, but no such charge was framed against the respondents. 1 Crl. Revision No. 141 of 2009 (O&M) The prosecution story is that on 26.07.2005 Udey Ram- petitioner No.3 had an altercation with the accused persons, whereupon the accused persons caused injuries to him and Ram Niwas. Then, on 01.08.2005 Udey Ram and many other persons had assembled in the dharamshala for compromising the matter regarding an earlier incident, wherein the scuffle took place. The accused caused injuries to Maya Ram, Shree Chand, Manphool, Dharam Chand and Rajesh. As such, all the four respondents were challaned. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined seven witnesses. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial resulted into acquittal. State has not filed any appeal, but this revision has been preferred by Maya Ram and others. Having heard the rival contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned judgment at the revisional stage. Even Udey Ram (PW-3) has not completely supported the prosecution case. He simply testified that accused Mahavir had given a stick blow to him. He has not specifically mentioned about the part of body, whereupon he had suffered the injury. He has, however, admitted during the cross-examination that a ‘temple’ is situated in the dharamshala, which was constructed by the ‘Brahmins’. Said dharamshala is known as ‘Brahmin dharamshala’. Whereas, Shree Chand (PW-4) has stated that the said dharamshala belonged to Ram Kishan, Aggarwal by caste, who is managing the same. Even Dharam Chand (PW- 7) and Rajesh (PW-8) have not disclosed as to who had caused injuries to whom. Manphool (PW-9) has stated in his cross-examination that no fight had taken place in the premises of the dharamshala, whereas Udey Ram has 2 Crl. Revision No. 141 of 2009 (O&M) claimed that occurrence had taken place in the premises of dharamshala. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. Thus, on account of the aforesaid shaky and contradictory evidence, it is difficult to hold that the case against the accused is proved beyond doubt. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 26th August, 2011 Judge ajp 3