Criminal Misc. No.640-MA of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.640-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 14.8.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Hawa Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. S.K.Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. S. D. ANAND, J. The finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge in favour of respondents No. l to 4 (in case FIR No. 146 dated 26.10.2001, under Sections 323, 324,325,34 IPC, Police Station Pillukhera) proceeds on the basis that the two Medical Officers (who had examined the injured Pws) had not been examined, that the Investigating Officer had also not been examined, that the case property had not been produced, that there was unexplained delay of one day in lodging of the First Information Report and that the prosecution did not examine independent witnesses, namely, Sona, Omi, Rakesh, Kuldeep and Shiv Kumar at the trial. It would be apparent from a perusal of the above quoted facts that the prosecution had not been able to prove the number of injuries found on the person of injured. Non-examination, at the trial, of the Investigating Officer proves that the manner of investigation including the recovery of weapons of offence had also not been proved. That aspect assumes added importance in view of the fact that case property too was Criminal Misc. No.640-MA of 2007 -2- not produced at the trial. The prosecution had not been able to explain the delay of one day in lodging of the FIR. In that view of things, the possibility of intervening time having been utilised to coin a distorted version cannot be ruled out. The independent witnesses named above were given up as won over by the accused. The prosecution took upon itself the responsibility of declaring those witnesses 'hostile'. In all fairness, it ought to have examined those witnesses so that their credibility could be tested on the touch stone of cross-examination and it would have enabled the Court to arrive at its own conclusion, with regard to winning over or otherwise of those witnesses. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it is so ordered accordingly. August 14, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Criminal Misc. No.640-MA of 2007 -3-