Criminal Revision No.423 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.423 of 1996 Date of Decision: 23.04.2008. Sardara Singh .......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.S.K.Vohra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the complainant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) It is stated that on person of Sardara Singh, following nine injuries were found:- “1. A blue contusion measuring 3” x 1” on the dorso medial side of left lower part of thigh. 2. A blue contusion measuring 4” x 1” on dorso medial side of left upper part of lower leg below the left patella. The knee joint was diffusely swollen. 3. A diffuse swelling of left lower leg in the calf region. 4. A lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the front of left lower leg in its middle. 5. A diffuse swelling on the right calf region. 6. A lacerated wound measuring 1” x 12 on the front of right chin in its middle. 7. An incised wound measuring 1” x 25” on the front of right lower leg in its middle placed vertically. Criminal Revision No.423 of 1996 2 8. A reddish blue contusion measuring 3” x 2” on the lateral side of left fore-arm. 9. An incised wound measuring 3” x 5” on the lateral side of right hand near the base of right index finger. The underlying subcutaneous tissue and tendons were cut. The capsule of the metacarpo phalyegeal joint of index finger was found open”. Injury No.9 which is on the right index finger was declared grievous in nature. Rest of the injuries were declared simple. A perusal of the injuries shows that the same are on the non-vital part of the body i.e. on the leg in the calf region, fore-arm and on the right index finger. The very nature of the injuries rule out offence under Section 307 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that five accused were armed with deadly weapons i.e. 'Kirpan', 'Dang' and 'Sua' etc. belaboured injured Sardara Singh. Resultant, injuries belie the prosecution version. It is improbable that five accused who were armed with deadly weapons came determined to attack, and will cause injuries of the kind of which have been found. In case, prosecution story is believed then the harm would have been much greater. The learned Trial Court while taking into account the enmity, previous litigation and interestedness of the witnesses has come to the conclusion that the delay of one day in lodging report assume significance, to inflate the number of accused and to widen the net. The consultations and deliberations cannot be ruled out in the present case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the injured will be the last person who will falsely implicate anybody and enmity should be construed to hold that there was a motive on the part of the respondents to cause the injuries. While exercising my power under revision, I am conscious of the limitation in which a Revisional Court has to act in a revision against acquittal. In the present case, no appeal against acquittal has been filed. In appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court will only interfere when the view Criminal Revision No.423 of 1996 3 taken by the learned Trial Court is not plausible. In the present case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted me to tread on the path of re- appreciating and re-evaluating the evidence in a Revisional Jurisdiction. I am hesitant to do so in a revision against acquittal. This Court will not disturb the findings of the learned Trial Court until they suffer from any patent illegality, incurable irregularities or perversity. As the present case also pertains to the year 1996, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction taking into account discussion made above and hence, the revision petition is dismissed. April 23, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE