IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2137 of 2004 Date of decision: February 19, 2010 Mithu Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Bhagwant Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Tarundeep Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is the judgment dated 19.1.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who while reversing the judgment of conviction dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali, acquitted them of the charges under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. On 1.7.1997 on receipt of ruqa, ASI Sube Singh reached the community Health Centre, Dabwali, and sought fitness certificate of the injured Mithu Singh and then recorded his statement, who disclosed that on 30.6.1997, at about 7.30 a.m. When he had gone to the house of his nephew Bhagwant Singh respondent against making brick betting against him, to which he felt offended. Respondent Gajjan Singh raised a lalkara to teach the complainant lesson. There upon Bhagwant Singh came armed with gandasi, Sukhpal Singh armed with Saila and Akkari armed with Datti. Criminal Revision No.2137 of 2004 -2- *** Accused Bhagwant Singh inflicted gandasi blow on the left side of the forehead of the complainant. Sukhpal inflicted Saila blow on his arm and Akkari inflicted datar blow on the left leg of the complainant. On hearing hue and cry, his wife Sukhdev Kaur and daughter Karamjit Kaur arrived at the scene. On seeing them, the accused fled away. The case was registered, investigated and challan was presented in the court. They were charged under Section 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Mithu Singh (PW1), Sukhdev Kaur (PW2), ASI Sube Singh (PW3) and Dr. Sukhraj Singh (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and further submitted that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction, whereas, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 19.1.2004, while accepting their appeal acquitted them of the charges framed against them. Arguments heard. Having heard and examined the impugned judgment with the assistance of Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the respondent, it transpires that the medical examination of the inured was conducted after more than 36 hours delay and the statement of the injured was recorded after a lapse of about 40 hours. This inordinate delay stands unexplained. On analysis of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution case appears to be doubtful. Criminal Revision No.2137 of 2004 -3- *** The FIR was deferred by the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him and it was recorded after 22 days. No explanation has been coming forth as to why there was delay in registration of the case. No blood stained earth was lifted from the spot to corroborate the prosecution version. Blood stained clothes of the injured were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. There are serious discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses which effect the substratum of the prosecution case. The testimony of the complainant remains unsupported from any independent source; Sukhdev Kaur so examined is highly interested witness as such no implicit reliance could be placed on the testimony of Mithu Singh complainant. The medical evidence also does not fit in with the ocular version. Further more, no such illegality much less irregularity was detected warranting interference by tis court at the revisional stage. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. February 19, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge