IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1507 of 2004 Date of decision: 25.10.2010 Raj Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Ms. Tejinderpal Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae with Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana. **** A.N. JINDAL, J.(ORAL) This petition is directed against the judgement dated 13.7.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgement dated 16.8.2003/18.8.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Mahindergarh convicting and sentencing all the accused namely Rati Ram, Rajpal and Girasi alias Guddar were for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 325 IPC and R.I. for a peiod of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323 IPC. However, during appeal, Girasi alias Guddar and Rati Ram accused were acquitted. Factual matrix of the case is that on 24.12.1994 a she pig (sow) belonging to Raj Pal tried to lift the younger daughter of the Narain Singh, complainant (herein referred as the complaint) which invited the exchange of words between Rajpal and the Complainant on 25.12.1994 again the sow of the Raj Pal attempted to lift the daughter of the complainant, at this, the latter hit the sow. Consequently, Rajpal came out of his house with a lathi and exhorted Crl. Revision No. 1507 of 2004 -2- the complainant that he would teach him a lesson to for hitting his sow. Rajpal inflicted a lathi blow to the left writ of the complainant. In the meantime, Giarsi alias Guddar and Rati Ram also came there and they also gave slap and fist blows to the complainant. The cries of the complainant attracted Ashok who also came there and he was also given slap and fist blows by these accused persons. The cries made by complainanat attracted the several persons of the Mohalla. At this accused left for their house. On the abovesiad complaint made by Narain a Daily Diary Report was registered. Narain was medico-legally examined by Dr. R.S. Sharma at CHC, Mahendargarh and he was radiologically examined by Dr. Narbir Singh on 26.12.1994, which indicated the fracture of 2nd metacarpal bone of his left hand. Therefore, the case was registered against them under Section 323, 325 read with section 34 of IPC and was investigated, ultimately it culminated into a report under Section 173 Cr.PC. The accused was charged for offences under Section 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to support its case. Therafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC despite the liberty given the accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. The trial ended into conviction of all the accused. However, the Appellate Court extented benefit of doubt to Rati Ram, Giarsi alias Guddar and accepted their appeal. The revision preferred by the Crl. Revision No. 1507 of 2004 -3- complainant was also dismissed. Counsel for the parties heard and record perused. Narain Dass complainant a stamped witness in the case, he having no motive to implicate the accused falsly has frankly testified against the accused by nominating them as the real culprit. Motive to commit the crime stands duly established. The complainant had remonstrated Rajpal and hit the accused for the act of the sow owned by him, therefore, having felt annoyed the accused caused by this to the complainant. His statement stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The accused Giarsi alias Guddar and Rati Ram having not caused any injuries to the complainant were extended benefit of doubt. However, the testimonies of the witnesses quo the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the crime has not been doubted by both the Couts. Both the Courts below have indicted him of the commission of crime. No plausible defence has been led by the accused. In the absence of any illegality or irregularity having come forth the findings of fact returned by both the Courts below can't be interfered with. Resultantly, no exception could be made to the expression of opinion made byl the Courts below. As such the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. The amicus curaie appointed by this Court would be at liberty to receive his emoluments. (A.N. JINDAL) 25.10.2010 JUDGE Poonam(II)