Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1586 of 2002 Date of decision:11.10.2010 Surrender Pal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Amarjit Singh, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advpcate, for respondents No.2 to 4. … JORA SINGH, J. This criminal revision was preferred by Surender Pal Singh to challenge the judgment dated 15.3.2002 passed by JMIC, Kurukshetra, in Crl. Case No. RBT-86 of 1999(94), arising out of FIR No. 236 dated 20.9.1994 under Sections 323/324/341/34 IPC, Police Station, Shahabad. By the said judgment, accused were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against acquittal, no appeal by the State. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.9.1994, MLR of Surender Pal Singh was received from Civil Hospital, Shahabad, in the police station and on receipt of MLR, ASI Rajender Singh along with party had gone to CHC, Shahabad, to record the statement of injured, where he received another medical ruqa in respect of injured Rakesh Kumar. Application was given to the doctor to report as to whether injured were fit Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 2 to make statement or not. Both the injured were declared unfit to make their statement. No eye witness was present in the hospital. ASI Rajender Singh on the same day again moved application requesting the doctor to report as to whether injured were fit to make statement or not. Then both the injured were declared fit to make their statement. Statement of Surender Pal Singh was recorded. Allegation of injured was that on the intervening night of 19/20.9.1994 at about 10.00 PM, he along with Rakesh Kumar was going on a scooter towards Nilokheri. At about 10.30 PM, they were present near Village Sharifgarh. In the meantime, Maruti Car No.HR-7-A-410 was noticed and stopped in front of their scooter. Four persons, including Pardeep Kumar, Gurvinder Singh and Randhir Singh were in the car. Accused raised lalkara to teach them a lesson for raising a dispute with Sharma. Accused were armed with dandas and hockeys and gave blows to him and Rakesh Kumar. Randhir Singh was also armed with knife and gave blow to him. Unknown person was armed with danda and gave blow on his head and left hand. Raula was raised and on hearing raula, Avtar Singh came at the spot and had rescued them from the clutches of the accused. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot. They were brought to Civil Hospital, Shahabad, for treatment. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused were charged under Sections 323/324/341/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 3 Prosecution examined PW1 Rakesh Kumar, injured, and PW2 Surender Pal Singh, injured. Both have supported the prosecution story by saying that accused had caused injuries to them. PW3 Dr.P.K.Gupta on 27.9.1994 had radiologically examined Surender pal Singh but no bone injury was noticed. Ex.PW3/A is the copy of X-Ray report. PW4 Dr.S.H.Sehgal on 20.9.1994 had medico legally examined Surender Pal Singh and found the following injuries on his person:- “1. Lacerated wound 1.2 cm x .3 cm on left side of forehead, .5 cm lateral to midline and in its middle, wound was bone deep with clotted blood present. Swelling round was present. Complaint of giddiness. 2. Bruise 4 cm x 2.6 cm on dorse lateral aspect of right forearm on lower part of right forearm area was reddish in colour. Swelling around the wound was present. Movements were painful and restricted. 3. Abraison 1.2 cm x .5 cm on ventral aspect on left forearm in its middle with clotted blood present. Movements were normal. 4. Diffuse swelling in the area of 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm on back of skull, complaint of pain. 5. An incised wound 3 cm x .3 cm spindle shape on left side of back of chest, .6 cm from mid-line and 3.5 cm below the inferior angle of scapple, wound was muscle deep with clotted blood was present. Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 4 6. Diffused swelling on dorsem right hand was present. Super imposed was an abrasion 1 cm x .2 cm on middle size. Movements were painful. Area was reddish in colour.” PW5 ASI Rajender Singh is the Investigating Officer. Defence version of Gurvinder Singh and Randhir Singh was that Surender Pal Singh had pressurized them to depose falsely regarding a forged Will. When they refused to oblige him, then they have been falsely implicated in this case. Defence version of Pardeep Kumar was that in case FIR No.235/94, he was pressurized to give false statement. Surender Pal Singh was also pressurizing him to give false statement qua Will of his uncle Jabbar Jang Singh. Will was forged but he refused to oblige him. In defence, Avtar Singh appeared as DW1 and stated that he was a driver on the transport of Kanwar Jang Singh w.e.f. 1990 to 1996. Surender Pal Singh is the son of Kanwar Jang Singh. Accused did not cause injuries to Rakesh Kumar or Surender Pal Singh in his presence. He did not witness the occurrence. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on the file, accused were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents (accused) and have gone through the evidence on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the intervening night of 19/20.9.1994, respondents fully armed had caused Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 5 injuries to Surender Pal Singh and Rakesh Kumar. Both were medico legally examined. Occurrence was witnessed by Avtar Singh but Avtar Singh was won over by the respondents. Evidence on the file was not properly scrutinized by the trial Court. According to story, occurrence was witnessed by Avtar Singh but Avtar Singh appeared in defence and stated that in his presence, respondents had not caused injuries to Surender Pal Singh or Rakesh Kumar. There was no other eye witness, except Avtar Singh. So, statement of Avtar Singh, alleged eye witness, creates doubt. Surender Pal Singh and Rakesh Kumar were facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 341/323/148/149/506 IPC. This fact is clear from the copy of charge sheet (Ex.DB). Pardeep Kumar, one of the respondents, is the brother of Parmod Kumar, injured in the above said case. That means, before the occurrence, there was previous enmity amongst the parties. Both the injured were facing trial and to wriggle out of that case, possibility of false implication of the respondents with the allegation that they had caused injuries to them on 19.9.1994 cannot be ruled out. Rakesh Kumar, one of the injured, in examination-in-chief stated that on 19.9.1994, he along with Surender Pal Singh was going on scooter from Shahabad towards Nilokheri. At about 10.30 PM when they were near Village Sharifgarh, then Maruti Car No.HR-7-A-410 came from the opposite side and was stopped in front of their scooter. Respondents were in the car along with one unknown person. Respondents came out of the car and caused injuries to them, whereas Surender Pal Singh, second injured, stated that on 19.9.1994, when they were going on a scooter, then Maruti Car came from front side. Four persons were in the car. One of Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 6 them was not known to them. Three persons had caused injuries to him and Rakesh Kumar. After the occurrence, as per story, both the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Shahabad, for treatment. Surender Pal Singh, injured, stated that directly, they had gone to Civil Hospital, Shahabad. Rakesh Kumar stated that they were going to attend function at Nilokheri but there was no ceremony in the evening at Nilokheri. Ex.D1 is the invitation card and as per card, function was celebrated during day time and this fact was admitted by Rakesh Kumar in his cross-examination. So, when there was no ceremony in the evening, then there was no idea to go towards Nilokheri to attend the ceremony at night time. According to story, occurrence was witnessed by Avtar Singh only but Rakesh Kumar in his cross-examination stated that occurrence was witnessed by Avtar Singh, Balbir Singh and others, who rescued them from the clutches of the respondents. Balbir Singh and Avtar Singh not examined. Avtar Singh appeared in defence and falsified the prosecution story. If occurrence was witnessed by Balbir Singh and others, then no reason why they were not joined in the investigation of this case. As discussed earlier, ceremony was during day time. At 10.30 PM, there was no occasion to visit Nilokheri to attend ceremony when distance of Nilokheri was 30 miles from the village of the injured. Surender Pal Singh stated that after the occurrence, injured had directly gone to Civil Hospital but Rakesh Kumar stated that after the occurrence, they had gone to Shahabad, then to hospital. Dr.S.H.Sehgal stated that Surender Pal Singh was brought to hospital by Rajender Kumar at 11.30 PM on 19.9.1994. Ruqa was sent to the concerned police station. Rakesh Kumar was brought by one Rajesh Kumar after ruqa in respect of Surender Pal Singh, injured, Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 7 was sent to concerned police station. Prosecution story is not clear how Rajesh Kumar and Rajender Kumar came to know about the occurrence and where they had met the injured. No evidence on the file that they were also present at the time of occurrence. If they were present at the time of occurrence, only then after occurrence, they were expected to shift the injured to hospital for medical aid. Doctor also admitted that injuries on the person of Rakesh Kumar and Surender Pal Singh could be at different times. Possibility of injuries on the person of Rakesh Kumar being self suffered or self inflicted cannot be ruled out. Similarly, possibility of injuries on the person of Surender Pal Singh being self suffered or self inflicted cannot be ruled out. Possibility of injuries by fall against hard surface cannot be ruled out. When injured were facing trial for causing injuries to one Parmod Kumar, brother of Pardeep Kumar, one of the respondents, then possibility of self suffering or self inflicting injuries as a counter blast to the earlier case cannot be ruled out. Evidence further shows that Pardeep Kumar, one of the respondents, was one of the attesting witnesses of the Will which was got executed by Surender Pal Singh’s uncle Jabbar Jang Singh in favour of his wife and daughter. Possibility of Surender Pal Singh to pressurize Pardeep Kumar not to support the Will cannot be ruled out. Injured are not clear about the place of occurrence. Secondly, they are not in a position to explain why they were going towards Nilokheri at about 10.00/10.30 PM when function was during day time. One injured stated that during day time, they failed to attend the function so in the evening, they were going to bless the couple, whereas second injured stated that they were going to attend reception but when function was during day time at noon, then no Crl.Revision No.1586 of 2002 8 question to attend reception or visit Nilokheri at 10.30 PM to bless the couple, when distance of Nilokheri from the village of injured was 30 miles. Injured stated that after occurrence, directly they had gone to the hospital, whereas doctor stated that one injured, namely, Surender Pal Singh was brought by Rajender Kumar at 11.30 PM in the hospital. After arrival of injured, ruqa was sent to the concerned police station at about 12.10 AM during night time. After that, second injured Rakesh Kumar was brought by Rajesh Kumar. Story is not clear as to how Rajender Kumar and Rajesh Kumar came into picture. When possibility of injuries being self suffered or self inflicted cannot be ruled out and there was previous enmity amongst the parties, then I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No scope to re-appreciate or re-apprise the evidence on the file, when no appeal against acquittal by the State. When two views are possible, then the view favourable to the respondents-accused is to be accepted. Court is not to interfere while exercising revisional powers simply on the ground that there is a possibility of different view. In the light of above discussion, revision without merit is dismissed. 11.10.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE