IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2423 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 26, 2011 Rishi Pal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment of acquittal dated 21.2.2009 under Sections 323 & 324 IPC, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 5.7.2000 at about 10.00 p.m. when the petitioner- complainant (herein referred as, 'the complainant') was returning after hearing the sacred rhymes and reached near his house, then the accused- respondent No.2 (herein referred as, 'the accused') inflicted a gandasi blow upon his head. On raising hue and cry, Suresh Raj and Ram Karan intervened and saved him. Consequently, he was shifted to the hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the complainant on 6.7.2000, ruqa was sent by the Investigating Officer, on the basis of which FIR was registered. The case was investigated and ultimately challan against the respondent No.2 was presented in the Court. The respondent No.2 contested the charge. The definite case of the complainant is that the occurrence took place near his house, whereas, Ram Karan (PW5) deposed that when the complainant reached near the house of Nakili Ram and was going to the Harijan Basti, then he saw the accused coming from behind and he hit danda blow at that time. The injury certainly is not the result of blunt weapon and his testimony is contradictory to the testimony of the complainant Rishi Pal (PW1). That apart, there is serious unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place on Crl. Revision No. 2423 of 2009 -2- *** 5.7.2000 at about 10.00 p.m. Whereas, the FIR was lodged on 9.7.2000. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not in a position to make statement, therefore, the delay occurred. Having perused the record, no merit was found in the contentions. The ruqa sent by the doctor was received in the police station on 6.7.2000 and thereafter the police reached the hospital on the same day but he was declared as unfit to make the statement. Then on 7.7.2000, the doctor declared him fit to make the statement and his statement was recorded but the FIR was not registered and it was registered on 9.7.2000. The prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and improbabilities inviting this court to hold that the version as set up by the prosecution is not correct and proved to the hilt. It is well settled by now that even if two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. No merits. Dismissed. August 26, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge