IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1106 of 2005 Date of decision: November 01, 2010 Gurpiar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Janak Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State. None for the respondents No.1 to 7. A.N. Jindal, J The complainant has preferred this petition against the judgment dated 8.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur acquitting the accused-respondents (herein referred as, 'the respondent') of the charges under Sections 307/324/326/148 read with Section 149 IPC. On 7.10.2003, at about 6.00 p.m. Gurpiar Singh complainant (herein referred as, 'the complainant') after leaving utensils at the house of Balwinder Singh was going towards his house. When he reached in front of the house of Janak Singh, the respondents were seen standing in front of later's house. Janak accused raised lalkara to catch him and thereafter, Ajaib Singh accused rushed towards the complainant and inflicted a khapra blow on his head with an intention to kill. Resultantly, the complainant fell down and thereafter Niranjan Singh @ Nanja inflicted khapra blow from its sharap side on his left foot. Thereafter, Janak Singh and his son Maddi dragged him by tying a rope around his neck. Thereafter, Jaila Singh accused inflicted two dang blows on his left shoulder and back while he was lying on the ground. Jaila Singh inflicted many dang blows to the complainant. When Jaila Singh was just to give one more blow with dang, the complainant raised alarm which attracted Balwinder Singh to the spot. Jaila Singh inflicted one dang blow with force on the right arm of Balwinder Singh. He raised alarm “na maro, na maro” Then Jaila Singh again inflicted another dang blow on the left arm of Balwinder Singh. In the meantime, Akki (daughter) and Vidya (daughter in law of Janak Singh) came at the Criminal Revision No. 1106 of 2005 -2- spot and they also inflicted fist blows to the complainant. On raising hue and cry, Pal Singh son of Gurbachan Singh and many other people gathered there. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant as well as Balwinder Singh injured were shifted to the C.H. Kauhrian for medical treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused accused were charged under Section 307/326/324/323/148 read with Section 149 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. P.C. Goyal (PW1), Gurpiar Singh (PW2), Balwinder Singh (PW3), ASI Amrik Singh (PW4), Dharminder Singh (PW5), HC Dharamvir Singh (PW6), ASI Lachhman Dass (PW7) and C-II Gurtej Singh (PW8). The trial ended in acquittal. The trial court acquitted the accused on the three grounds viz. (i)the accused party also suffered injuries but these injuries remain unexplained; (ii)neither any independent witness was associated nor examined despite the fact that the occurrence took place in the residential locality; (iii)the trial court has wrongly discarded the testimonies of Gurpiar Singh and Balwinder Singh. Arguments heard. Record perused. Occurrence in this case took place on 7.10.2003 at about 6.00 p.m. and the FIR was recorded after one day i.e. on 8.10.2003. The said delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained. Though the persons from the side of the complainant party viz. Akki and Janak Singh had also suffered injuries from the accused side as proved by Dr. N.K. Duggal, but the complainant party has not stated as to how the accused party suffered injuries. Gurpiar Singh (PW2) and Balwinder Singh (PW3) are the brothers of Gurtej Singh. As such, both the witnesses are related to each other and are highly interested witnesses. Ex.PM which is the statement of the complainant Gurpiar Singh discloses that Pal Singh son of Gurbachan Singh Criminal Revision No. 1106 of 2005 -3- had also come at the place of occurrence and he was also associated during the course of investigation, but he has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The trial court appear to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. November 01, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge