Crl.Revision No.666 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev. No.666 of 2008 Date of decision: 8.10.2009 Gurcharan Dass ... Petitioner versus Ranjit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ... JORA SINGH, J. Mohinder Singh filed this revision to challenge the judgment dated 31.8.2007 passed by JMIC, Ludhiana, in FIR No.41 dated 18.4.2001 under Sections 325/323/34 IPC, Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana. Vide this judgment, the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 31.8.2007, present revision was instituted. According to the prosecution story, on 21.3.2001, ASI Surjit Singh along with police party while on patrol duty was present near Gurdwara Sahib, Dhuri Line, Ludhiana. Then complainant Mohinder Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that while near Gurdwara Sahib at 6.00 PM, Ranjit Singh, Parabhjot Singh and Pushpinder Singh came and caused injuries to him. Ranjit Singh had caused grievous assault on his left hand ring finger. Accordingly, a case under Sections 325/323/34 IPC was Crl.Revision No.666 of 2008 2 registered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. The accused were charged under Sections 323/325/34 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 7 witnesses. After closing of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. In defence, the accused had tendered two documents, i.e., Mark DA and DX. Ultimately on merits, the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at 6.00 PM on 21.3.2001, complainant Mohinder Singh was present near Gurdwara Sahib. Then accused came and had caused grievous assault on his left hand ring finger. Dr. U.S.Sooch while appearing in the Court as PW3 has fully supported the version of Mohinder Singh (PW2). Gurpreet Singh (PW1) is the eye witness. But evidence on the file was not rightly scrutinized. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file, but I do not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. No ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Occurrence is dated 21.3.2001 at 6.00 PM, whereas the FIR is dated 18.4.2001. After the occurrence, DDR was recorded in view of the statement of the petitioner. Ex.PW4/A is the copy of DDR. According to the DDR, at 6.00 PM, Mohinder Singh was present near Gurdwara Sahib. Then sighted Ranjit Singh along with his sons, whose names are not known to him. Accused had grappled with Mohinder Singh and gave fist blows on Crl.Revision No.666 of 2008 3 the mouth and left hand. As per DDR, ring finger of left hand was twisted by Ranjit Singh. Except this, no other allegation is against the accused party. Dr. U.S.Sooch appeared as PW3 and stated that on 21.3.2001 at 6.45 PM, he had medico legally examined Mohinder Singh and found the following injuries on his person:- “1. Red contusion 3” x 3-1/2” on the right forehead. 2. Both the eye lets of the right eye were blackened with small subconjunctival haemorrhage. 3. The both eye lets of the left eye were blackened with abrasion ¾” x 1/10” along with ooze from the upper eye let which marked swelling. The injury was referred to Eye Specialist for expert opinion. 4. Abrasion ¼” x ¼” on the upper part of nose. 5. Diffused swelling of the left ring finger in its middle. X- ray was advised. 6. Abrasion 2” x ¼” horizontal below the left eye.” All the injuries were kept under observation and were caused with blunt weapon. Injury No.5 was declared grievous. Diffused swelling of the left ring finger in its middle was noticed. Dr. Ashok Rashwant, Radiologist, while appearing as PW5, stated that that he had x-rayed injury on the person of Mohinder Singh, but in cross-examination admitted that possibility of fracture being self suffered cannot be ruled out. Hair line fracture was noticed in the middle of phalanx. He further stated that if the finger is forcibly twisted, it usually causes complete fracture. Crl.Revision No.666 of 2008 4 According to the DDR, fist blows were also given on the face of the petitioner, but injury No.1 was noticed as red contusion 3” x 3-1/2”. In the DDR, only one accused was named, i.e., Ranjit Singh. No role of the co-accused. Supplementary statement of the petitioner was recorded on 29.5.2001. As per supplementary statement, names of sons of Ranjit Singh were got recorded. As discussed earlier, ring finger of left hand was twisted, whereas pictorial diagram on the back side of MLR (Ex.PB), showing the seat of injuries, shows that no injury was noticed on the left hand ring finger. Injury was noticed on the index finger of right hand. Evidence shows that shop of father of the petitioner was at a distance of 200/250 yards from the place of occurrence. The petitioner was on a scooter but after the occurrence, the petitioner instead of going to the shop of his father had gone to the shop of one Gurpreet Singh, whose shop was at a distance of 100 yards. When the petitioner was on a scooter, then there was no idea to visit the Civil Hospital on a rickshaw. Place of occurrence was within abadi. Number of shops, factories and houses were around the place of occurrence. But except Gurpreet Singh, no other person had appeared at the spot. If occurrence was on 21.3.2001, then why the FIR was got registered on 18.4.2001. Gurpreet Singh while appearing as PW1 has supported the version of the petitioner, but he is not the eye witness. In fact, he has deposed in favour of the petitioner whatsoever was told to him by the petitioner. Statement of Gurpreet Singh is a hearsay evidence. His statement was rightly ignored. Crl.Revision No.666 of 2008 5 File shows that statement of the petitioner is contrary to the medical evidence. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. If the ring finger of left hand was twisted, then question is how injury was noticed on the index finger of right hand. Prosecution failed to explain how this has happened. All this shows that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No scope to interfere in the impugned judgment. As a sequel to the above discussion, revision being without merit is dismissed. 8.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE