Criminal Revision No. 2416 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2416 of 2003 Date of decision: February 11, 2010 Waryam Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner-complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 12.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.1992 passed by the trial court was reversed and the accused-respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents') were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 323/341 read with Section 34 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 23.5.2000, the complainant disclosed before ASI Gurdip Singh that about 15 years ago, Sarpanch Chet Ram of his village had given 20 biswas of land out of shamlat land for fabrication of earthen utensils and he had been using the land for the said purpose since then. About 4-5 days ago, Kashmiri Lal, Hans Raj, Charna, Sukhdev came to his house and illegally occupied the said land and asked him to vacate the same, but he replied that DDP Patiala had decided the case in his favour. Thereafter, they while threatening went to the house of Lachhman Dass. On 23.5.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. He along with his son Bhagwan Dass was going to temple to pay obeisance, and when they were further going to the house of Darshan Ram, Kashmiri Lal respondent armed with dang raised lalkara that the complainant and his son should not be allowed to go alive. Hans Raj, with an intention to kill him, inflicted axe Criminal Revision No. 2416 of 2003 -2- blow which hit on left side of his head. Kashmiri Lal inflicted dang blow on his left hand. Charna Ram and Sukhdev started beating his son Bhagwan Dass with their sticks. They raised hue and cry at which attracted people from the village, resultantly, the respondents took to their heels. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case FIR was registered. Rough site plan was prepared and the injured were medico-legally examined; the accused were arrested; weapons of offence were taken into possession; statements of the witnesses were recorded; and on completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. The accused were charged under Sections 341/323 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Waryam Singh (PW1), Bhagwan Dass (PW2), C. Ram Chand (PW3), Shiama Ram (PW4), ASI Gurdip Singh (PW5), Dr. S.S. Oberoi (PW6), Dr. Satwinder Singh (PW7) and Indresh Khanna Draftsman (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Ved Parkash (DW1). Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. However, in appeal, they were acquitted. Arguments heard. The instant case was got registered on the basis of the statement Ex.P1 made by the complainant Waryam Singh. However, perusal of the said statement reveals that it bears faded thumb impression purported to have been affixed by the complainant. Besides the thumb impression of the complainant, Ex.P1 also bears the signatures of Bhagwan Dass. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant was accompanied by Bhagwan Dass and Lachhman Dass on 23.5.2000 when statement of the complainant was recorded, however, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the statements of other witnesses namely Bhagwan Dass and Lachhman Dass were not recorded on the same day. Non explanation of this circumstance creates serious doubt over the prosecution version. Further more, the ocular version is not consistent with the medical evidence. The complainant has stated that accused Hans Raj inflicted pole axe blow on his head, but no Criminal Revision No. 2416 of 2003 -3- such injury with sharp edged weapon was found on the person of the complainant. It may further be noticed that the complainant in his cross examination has stated that Ex.P1 does not bear his thumb impression and he did not see Bhagwan Dass in the police station on that day, whereas, Ex.P1 bears the signatures of Bhagwan Dass also. As per version of the complainant, at the time of occurrence, neighbourers had gathered at the spot, but no one from the neighbourhood was cited as a witness. That apart, testimony of Ved Parkash (DW1) ex-sarpanch of the village shows that there was party faction in the village and the accused persons wanted to get the shamlat land vacated from the complainant, whereas, Chet Ram Sarpanch was not interested in doing so. The aforesaid aspects create a doubt over the prosecution version. Having examined the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court appears to have dealt with all the points elaborately. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected so as to warrant interference by this court. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. February 11, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge