IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1776 of 2004 Date of Decision 17.02.2010 Amrik Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State of Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) (Fast Track Court), Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 24.07.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 326 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC. However, in appeal sentence awarded under Section 326 IPC was reduced to 1½ years. There is no record with regard to the bail of the petitioner in the file. It appears that he has already undergone the sentence. Even otherwise, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to argue the case. After perusing the record with the assistance of learned State counsel, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 323, 324 and 326 I.P.C. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the petitioner did not assail the judgment of conviction dated 24.07.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur before the appellate Court but only prayer was regarding taking lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Though, it was bounden duty of the Court to examine the Criminal Revision No.1776 of 2004 -2- prosecution evidence and to find out the guilt of the accused independently of the concession extended by the counsel. Yet this Court is not powerless to go into the evidence as led by the prosecution and to appreciate if the accused is guilty of the offence or not. PW1 Dr.Daljinder Singh proved the injuries of the complainant vide MLR Ex.PA and pictorial diagram Ex.PA/1. Ortho- Surgeon has also given the opinion Ex.PA/3 with regard to the nature of the injuries. PW2 Joga Singh eye-witness, has duly testified that the accused had caused injuries to the complainant. PW3 complainant has also reiterated the prosecution version and described the injuries caused to him by the accused. PW6 Gurnek Singh got recovered the 'datar' Ex.P1 and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/C. PW7 Baldev Singh proved the FIR Ex.PW7/B. The injured suffered as many as seven injuries including two grievous injuries on his person. Mere fact that the eye witness is a relative of the complainant, is hardly sufficient to discard or exclude from consideration altogether. In the absence of any enmity of a relative witness to falsely implicate the accused, the same could be taken as equally good and at par with the independent witness if clears the test of reliability and trustworthiness. Both the witnesses have consistently described the time, place and the manner of the occurrence. Despite the lengthy cross-examination upon them, they were fair enough to make truthful statements. No plausible defence has been led. From the aforesaid evidence, it appears that the case was full-proof and the witnesses were reliable and trustworthy. Thus, it would not be appropriate to remit the case on this ground alone after 10 years when the trial had concluded and the accused was convicted. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 17.02.2010 mamta-II