Crl.Rev.No.949 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.949 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18 - 5 - 2009 Ajay Chand .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was tried in case FIR No.266 dated 7.11.2005 registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja under Sections 279, 336, 427, 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Sections 279/336 IPC. Petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 326 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. In the present case, FIR Ex.PW8/A was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PW1/A made by Ian D. Rozario. In his statement, he has Crl.Rev.No.949 of 2009 [2] stated that he was employed as a Deputy General Manager in R.P.G. Transmission, Gurgaon. On 31.10.2005, at about 5.00 P.M. when after performing his duty, he was coming towards his house in his own car bearing No.DL 9C M 0453 Maruti Baleno, then at Faridabad near Kanishka Tower turn at about 8.00 P.M., one young man came on a motor cycle. He was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and his car was hit by the motor cycle. Later he learnt his name as Ajay Chand son of Partap, resident of Tilpat. When the complainant came out of the car and protested, at that stage, accused gave abuses and gave a punch on the left eye of the complainant. The wife of the complainant was attracted at the spot. She got her husband admitted in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. Complainant remained admitted in the hospital from 31.10.2005 to 4.11.2005, when he was discharged from the hospital. His statement leading to the registration of FIR was recorded on 7.11.2005. Investigation was completed. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the petitioner. Complainant was examined by PW-7 Dr.H. Rera, CMO, Apollo Hospital. He found the following injuries on the person of complainant PW-1 Ian D. Rozario:- 1) Left eye conjuctival hammarage with blood oozing. Leniear cut over left eye brow 1 cm. Haemodynamically, he was stable but needed surgery of left eye exploration to repair a left eye wound and the patient was shifted to operation theater for surgery, immediately. To Dr.Harsh Kumar, Senior Consultant of Thalmalogist. Copy of original MLR is Ex.PW7/A bears Crl.Rev.No.949 of 2009 [3] my signature and I have brought the record of said MLR in the court today. The patient was brought by his wife.” PW-4 Dr.Harsh Kumar had operated complainant Ian D. Rozario. He found that left eye and the eye brow was badly damaged. He further stated that he had repaired the eye but it will never have any vision because of injury. The trial Court had placed implicit reliance on the testimony of PW-1 Ian D. Rozario and his wife Sandra Rozario and convicted the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court had converted the offence under Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC and conviction was also converted from 326 IPC to 325 IPC. However, taking into consideration that injured had lost his eye, sentence awarded under Section 326 IPC i.e. three years rigorous imprisonment was maintained. The solitary argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR and the name of the petitioner had surfaced later. Ian D. Rozario had no animus with the petitioner. Therefore, two Courts blow have rightly held that delay will not be material in the present case. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that it has been stated by the witnesses that petitioner became conscious and fit to make the statement on 7.11.2005, whereas this assertion of the witnesses is belied from the medical evidence, as injured was discharge on 4.11.2005. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Mere discharge from the hospital, will not make the injured fit to make the statement. No cross-examination was conducted to ascertain the condition of the injured from 4.11.2005 to 7.11.2005. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that once Crl.Rev.No.949 of 2009 [4] offence was converted from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC and petitioner was convicted for a lesser offence, some lesser punishment should have been awarded by the Appellate Court below. Taking this submission of counsel for the petitioner into consideration, sentence of three years awarded to the petitioner under Section 325 IPC is reduced to for two years and nine months rigorous imprisonment. With this modification in the order of sentence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 18, 2009. JUDGE RC