Crl.Rev.No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.8.2011 Sulakhan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Pooja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr.R.K,Garg, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. **** SABINA, J. Respondents No.2 and 3 along with Nachhatar Singh @ Satta had faced the trial under Sections 325, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No.153 dated 17.7.1999 registered at Police Station Patran. The trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 23.5.2006 convicted and sentenced respondents No. 2 and 3 for an offence under Sections 325, 323/34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, respondents No.2 Crl.Rev.No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) 2 and 3 preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 8.2.2010 and acquitted respondents No.2 and 3 of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present petition by the complainant. The case of the complainant, in brief, was that on 17.7.1999, he had gone to Patran for some domestic work. While he was returning back to his village and had reached near bus stand of village Hamjhari, an unknown person armed with a soti was standing at the bus stand and gave a signal to the complainant to stop his gypsy. At that time, Baljit Singh @ Bali armed with Gandhali and another unknown person armed with soti reached there. Complainant was made to alight from the gypsy. Baljit Singh @ Bali gave a gandhali blow on the mouth of the complainant and as a result, his one tooth broke and his other tooth also got dislocated. The unknown person armed with soti also inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. Baljit Singh @ Bali gave another gandhali blow on the back of the complainant and gave another blow from its reverse side on his right eye. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Appellate Court, while acquitting respondents No.2 and 3 of the charge framed against them, observed in the impugned judgment that as per the medical evidence, oral dental hygiene of the complainant was in a bad condition. The complainant already had number of teeth missing in his jaw. Baljit Singh @ Bali was an ex-sarpanch of the village and had allegedly received compensation from the Government in the names of his family members wrongly and illegally and complainant being ex-sarpanch had got the matter inquired into by moving an application. The case of Crl.Rev.No. 1419 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the complainant was that due to this reason injuries had been inflicted on his person. Since the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the ocular version and the alleged weapons used by the accused were not recovered during investigation, the Appellate Court rightly held that respondents No.2 and 3 were entitled for acquittal as the possibility that they had been falsely involved in this case due to enmity could not be ruled out. Moreover, no identification parade was got conducted by the Investigating Officer qua the unknown persons from the complainant during investigation. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondents No.2 and 3 of the charge framed against them, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 05, 2011 anita