Criminal Revision No.184 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.184 of 2005 Date of Decision 19.11.2010 Om Sukhlal ...... Petitioner VERSUS Dharam Pal and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Vide judgment dated 06.03.2002, passed by the trial Court at Karnal, the accused-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the accused') was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325 IPC. However, in appeal, the accused was acquitted whereas the revision petition preferred by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant-petitioner (herein referred as 'the complainant') has preferred this petition against the acquittal passed by the Appellate Court. In nutshell, the facts as putforth by the prosecution, are that on Criminal Revision No.184 of 2005 2 26.09.1990, a minor dispute had taken place between the accused Dharam Pal and Mangat Ram complainant (now deceased). Complainant lateron came to know that the accused had moved an application against him. On 28.09.1990, he had gone to the house of Kali Ram and remained there till midnight. When he was returning to his house, the accused alongwith some other persons, who were sitting in their room, exhorted the complainant to stop and tell as to why he had uttered obscene words to him. Thereupon an altercation took place. The accused caught hold of him by his chin and pushed him on the ground and caused him injuries near his left eye, arm, left knee and chest. On the basis of aforesaid statement, a DDR was recorded on 28.09.1990. On receipt of the x-ray report, a case was registered against the accused on 05.10.1990. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. However, during appeal, the Appellate Court, while accepting the appeal, acquitted the accused and also dismissed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence, preferred by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant Mangat Ram had expired before appearing in the witness box, therefore, in order to prove its version, the prosecution examined Om Sukh Lal (PW5) and Ram Saran (PW6) and tendered material documents i.e. copy of MLR Ex.PW4/A, x-ray report Ex.PW4/C, site plan Ex.PW3/C, DDR Ex.PW3/B, ruqa Ex.PW3/A, copy of the FIR Ex.PW2/B. While examining the aforesaid documents as well as the statements of witnesses, it transpires that the prosecution has been a complete failure to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The first version, as set out in the DDR by Mangat Ram is that the Criminal Revision No.184 of 2005 3 occurrence had taken place two days prior to the recording of the DDR i.e. during the night of 26/27.09.1990 but on perusal of the FIR Ex.PW2/B, the police has recorded the time of occurrence as “the intervening night of 28/29.09.1990”. If the time of occurrence, as mentioned in the FIR, is treated as correct then the MLR got conducted by the doctor, stands falsified which reveals that it was conducted on 28.09.1990 at 10:15 a.m. Even the x-ray report also appears to be false. Dr.R.K.Goel (PW4), who had conducted the MLR, had also conducted the x-ray. According to him, he had conducted the x-ray over the injuries of Mangat Ram on the same day i.e. 28.09.1990 but on perusal of the x-ray report Ex.PW4/C, it transpires that x-ray was conducted over the injuries on 29.09.1990. It is not explained as to how this discrepancy came to occur. Further if the doctor had conducted the x-ray report on 29.09.1990 then it is not explained as to why he formed the opinion on 05.10.1999. On perusal of the x-ray report Ex.PW1/D, the same appears to have been prepared with two different inks i.e. blue and green, thus from this aforesaid contradiction, interference could be drawn that x-ray report was motivated. The statements of the witnesses with regard to the time of occurrence are also contradictory. Though, the FIR gives the time of occurrence as intervening night of 28/29.09.1990 and DDR gives the time of occurrence as 26.09.1990 but Om Sukh Lal(PW5) and Ram Saran (PW6) give the time of occurrence as 27.09.1990. Again Dr.R.K.Goel (PW4) has not denied the suggestion that injuries mentioned in the MLR may have been suffered on account of fall on hard surface. Even otherwise, the appellate Court appears to have appreciated the entire evidence in the right perspective. No defect in procedure of trial has been pointed out and no such manifest error apparent Criminal Revision No.184 of 2005 4 on the record has been shown which may be sufficient to express different opinion than what was formed by the trial Court. It is well settled by now that where two views are possible then the view favourable to the accused would be accepted. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 19.11.2010 mamta-II