CRR No. 1613 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1613 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.08.2010 Smt. Bhartho Devi ........ Petitioner Versus Puran Singh and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R S Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. Vide judgement dated 16.04.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, the respondents-accused had been acquitted of the charge(s) framed against them. Thereafter, appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner against the aforesaid judgement was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bhiwani, vide judgement dated 25.02.2010 being devoid of merit. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the aforesaid judgements passed by the Court below, acquitting the respondents-accused. Facts, in short, as recorded in the FIR registered on the statement of Bhartho Devi, are that on 11.05.2003, at about 8.00 am, her CRR No. 1613 of 2010 2 husband had gone on duty in village Baralu. At about 8.30 am, she had gone to the well of Panchayat along with the buffaloes to enable the buffaloes to drink water. His sister-in-law accused Kamla had already gone there. Their buffaloes started quarrelling, on which, her sister-in-law started abusing her and gave a danda blow below of her left knee, due to which, she fell down. Her brother-in-law accused Puran gave a lalkara. Her son Satpal came there and on seeing him, accused persons fled away from the spot. She was hospitalised by her son. While praying for setting aside of the judgements passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution in spite of the fact that a number of people were present there. Bhartho Devi, the injured, admittedly received injuries. She remained hospitalised for 20 days and in spite of the medical evidence, the respondents-accused have been acquitted. Heard. Admittedly, in the present case, the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution which has proved fatal for the prosecution. It is also admitted that a civil litigation is pending between the parties. The injury on the leg is not denied. However, the question that remains is whether the said injury was caused by accused Kamla or by the buffaloes. The story put forward by the prosecution was that a fight took place between the buffaloes of the petitioner and the respondents-accused, on which, accused Kamla abused the petitioner and gave a danda blow below her left knee, due to which, she fell down. Thus, the possibility of the petitioner having received injury by CRR No. 1613 of 2010 3 falling down or by the buffaloes cannot be ruled out especially keeping in mind the opinion of the doctor that the fracture could be caused by fall on the hard surface on striking to some hard object or by forceful hit by some animal. The argument that there was no independent witness rather helps the accused person as the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused. Even otherwise, the revisional Court has very limited jurisdiction and no argument has been raised necessitating this Court to interfere in the judgements passed by the two Courts below holding that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond doubt. Nothing has been pointed out to enable this Court to set aside the judgement acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges framed against them. No ground. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 16, 2010 mohan