Crl.Misc. No.8064 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8064 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 18 , 2010 Ram Chander ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. O.P.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of impugned orders dated 20.1.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Kaithal whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 323/324/325/326/34 IPC and order dated 22.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Kaithal whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Sections 399/400 Cr.P.C was dismissed. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal in para 2 of its judgment, read as under:- "It is the version of the prosecution that on 12.4.1997, a rukka was received from the G.H.,Kaithal that Ram Chander has been admitted in the hospital. Police party reached the hospital and Crl.Misc. No.8064 of 2010 2 moved the application to the doctor seeking the fitness of the injured but he was declared unfit to make the statement, hence the police recorded the statement of Pali Ram who stated that he was an agriculturist. At about 7.00 a.m. he was present in his house when he heard some noise and when he came out he saw Baldeva, Mehar Singh and Darshan, who were armed with lathi and they were beating Ram Chander, who was lying on the road. Shamsher, Balbir and Bheera were present at the spot and they saved Ram Chander. Baldeva and his accomplices ran away from the spot along with their weapon. Ram Chander picked from the road and broguht inside the house. They inquired about the house of Ram Chander. Ram Chander had received injuries on his both legs and arms and when his house was located, his brother Rampal came with a tractor and Ram Chander was taken to the hospital. On the basis of complaint, formal FIR was registered and later on statement of Ram Chander Ex.PF also recorded. He stated that he was an agriculturist and on 12.4.1997 he was going to his field on motorcycle and when he reached near the house of Satpal, Baldeva who was armed with lathi, Darshan, who was armed with lathi and Mehar Singh also armed with lathi, were present near Kali Mata Temple, they stopped him and Baldeva hit him with a lathi on his hand and then on the arm. Baldev again attacked him on his right arm and Darshan attacked him on his chest; Mehar Singh also attacked on him with lathi on his right hand. Pali Ram, Balbir, Bheera and Shamsher came there and saved him and on seeing them accused ran away from Crl.Misc. No.8064 of 2010 3 the spot. He was picked up and brought to the house of Pali and from where his brother brought him to hospital. Investigation commenced.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. Learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused in para 19 of the impugned judgment, has held as under:- “After hearing learned defence counsel and after going through the case file carefully, it is observed that the present case has arisen after a complaint was filed by Pali Ram that accused had beaten up Ram Chander on 12.4.1997. The complaint has been filed by one of the eye witness, but the eye witness has not supported the prosecution version. Ram Chander is the sole witness in the present case and as per the medico legal report, he has received eight injuries and there are fracture at five places, in his knee, in hand in forearm, upper arm and forearm. The medical report has not been proved as the doctor has not appeared. X- report has been proved, which shows the fracture. The other eye witness, whom the complainant alleges that they saved him have not supported his version. The witnesses have also not identified the accused. There is no case registered against the complainant in the cross-case. The totality of the circumstances do not prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as it is observed that the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and there is merely statement of one injured and the place of occurrence is also doubtful as in the other case the Crl.Misc. No.8064 of 2010 4 occurrence has been shown to be near the house of one Satta and near the Kali Mata Temple, which is the site plan in the present case and it is version of the prosecution that Pali picked up Ram Chander from the place of occurrence and from there, he was taken to the hospital but Pali had not supported the prosecution story. Hence, discrepancies in the same creates doubt in the prosecution story and the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the attempt of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused has failed beyond reasonable doubt and the version given by the complainant is not supported by him in his testimony. The base of the case is a complaint made by one Pali Ram but he has not supported the case of the prosecution, hence, the charge against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. File be cosigned to record room, after due compliance.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the accused, are sound reasons. The petitioner had failed to lead any corroborative evidence qua the injuries suffered by him Petitioner had failed to examine the doctor who had medico legally examined the petitioner after the alleged occurrence. The eye witnesses, who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence, have also not supported the prosecution case qua the involvement of the accused. Although the petitioner has allegedly suffered eight injuries and has suffered fracture of bones at five Crl.Misc. No.8064 of 2010 5 places yet he was required to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Petitioner has, however, failed to do so. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 18, 2010 arya