Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2003 Date of Decision 01.10.2010 Rajbir son of Maha Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kuldeep Singh Yadav, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 03.09.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 22.04.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 326 IPC. Factual matrix of the case is that complainant Rameshwar Dutt (herein referred as 'the complainant') was working in the passport Office at Delhi and residing at Sonepat. The accused, who was also residing there, was a mischievous type of man. He used to urinate in the street itself without taking precautions of the neighbours being present, to which the complainant objected. On 20.06.1992 at about 7:00 p.m., the complainant alongwith his wife Bimla was watering the plants. In the meantime, the Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2003 2 accused Rajbir came out and started urinating while facing the complainant's house to which she objected but the accused abused them. During the altercation, the accused brought an axe from his house whereas the other members of his family namely Shanti, Rajwanti and their tenant picked up the bricks and started hurling the same. When the complainant tried to close the door, the accused Rajbir inflicted an axe blow on his head whereas Shanti inflicted danda blow on his left finger. The complainant also received other injuries on his elbow and other parts of the body and he was saved by Balwant and Mehtab. On the basis of aforesaid statement FIR Ex.PW7/A was registered under Sections 324/34 IPC and the case was investigated. Lateron, offence under Section 326 IPC was added. Ultimately, the accused was challaned. Finding a prima facie case against him, he was charged for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to prove of its case, the prosecution examined Rameshwar Dutt (PW1), Ajit Singh (PW2), Bimla (PW3), Dr.Subodh Kumar (PW4), Dr.Promila Jain (PW5), Inspector Same Ram (PW6) and Inspector Chaman Lal (PW7). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, he explained that Rameshwar Dutt and Bimla had inflicted injuries upon him regarding which he had made a complaint to the police and cross case was pending. The police had registered this false case against him in collusion with the complainant. In defence, he tendered copy of the statement of Dr.Subodh Ex.D2, which was made by him in case 'State versus Rameshwar'. Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2003 3 The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Amongst the other contentions, raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been urged that the weapon, allegedly recovered from him did not belong to him. The petitioner had attacked the complainant in self defence. There is no independent corroboration to the statements of Rameshwar Dutt and Bimla and injuries were not x-rayed, therefore, the offence under Section 326 IPC was not made out. To the contrary, Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has supported the impugned judgments by referring to the testimonies of the injured witnesses as well as eye-witness to the occurrence. Arguments heard. Record perused. Notwithstanding the fact that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution yet the evidence given by the stamped witness, if otherwise found credible and reliable could be placed reliance. There is no hard and fast rule that every case requires independent corroboration but the same could be required as a matter of precaution in order to lend more authenticity to the prosecution case. The present case stands established from the testimonies of Rameshwar Dutt (PW1) and Bimla (PW3). Rameshwar Dutt (PW1) is none-else but the injured person. He would be the last person to implicate the false persons while leaving the real culprits. His testimony has been duly corroborated in all material particulars by Bimla (PW3). They had no axe to grind against the accused. Their testimonies do not lose quality and credibility as the accused have also not denied the occurrence. Dr.Subodh Kumar (PW4) has also corroborated the prosecution version by stating that he examined Rameshwar Dutt (PW1) on 20.06.1992 and found the following injuries on his person:- Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2003 4 1. Incised wound 5.5 cms x 1.5 cms into scalp deep over right parietal region, active bleeding was present. Advised x-ray and kept under observation. 2. Incised wound 2.5 cms x .5 cms x .5 cms longitudinally placed at the antero lateral aspect of right little finger. Advised x-ray and orthopedic surgeon's opinion. 3. Contusion 1.5 cms x 1.5 cms bluish red in colour near left olecranon process advised x-ray and orthopedic surgeon's opinion. He has also opined that the injuries No.1 and 2 are the result of sharp edged weapon. Prosecution has also examined Dr.Promila Jain, Radiologist (PW5) who opined that on x-ray examination of the skull fracture of right parietal bone was found. Chaman Lal, retired Inspector, (PW7), investigating officer has proved the site plan of the place of occurrence and the other documents. The motive behind the occurrence stands established as the witnesses reiterate that the accused has been urinating while facing towards their house and he did not resist despite the fact that he has been remonstrated so many times, that shows the annoyance which the accused was attracting, as such the motive to prove the occurrence stands established. The accused has not led any evidence to prove if the complainant party was aggressor. The accused party is shown to have suffered minor injuries but the same are not required to be explained by the complainant. Even otherwise, both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused, therefore the scope of interference at this revisional stage is very limited in nature. The Criminal Revision No.1899 of 2003 5 Court could interfere in the findings of guilt returned by the Courts below only on finding a manifest error in procedure or conduct in the trial which may result into miscarriage of justice. The judgments appear to be well founded and well reasoned. Evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No further appreciation of evidence is permissible at this revisional stage. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim the remuneration from the concerned authority as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 01.10.2010 mamta-II