IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1442 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.01.2011 Mahender Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : None for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) None was present for the revisionist on 13.8.2010, 29.9.2010 and 26.11.2010. Even today none is present for the revisionist to press the petition. Present petition has not been admitted so far. None has appeared for the revisionist after filing the petition before this Court. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat thereby acquitting the accused-respondent in a case FIR No. 157 dated 30.8.2002 under Section 325 IPC registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, Sonepat. After going through the record, I find that learned trial Court has observed as under:- “16. I find sufficient force in the contentions raised by the learned defence counsel. The I.O. of the case has not been examined which is a serious infirmity. This can cause prejudice to the accused by depriving him of an Crl. Rev. No. 1442 of 2010 2 opportunity to show unreliability of the witness by proving contradictions in their statements. There is evidence on record to show that the accused also suffered injuries in the same incident. In the case of “State of Rajasthan vs. Madho and another” reported in Cr. Court Judgment Suppl. (Vol. 15) SC page 16 decided on 12.3.1991, the Hon'ble Court held that where serious injuries are sustained by the accused in the same incident and no explanation has been given by the prosecution witnesses as to how the accused suffered those injuries, then it gives an impression that they are suppressing the truth and in such circumstances, benefits of doubt has to be given to the accused. Further there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW2 has stated that they got their statement recorded with the police, whereas PW3 specifically stated in his cross examination that they did not get any statement recorded with the police. The complainant has also admitted that they are no more in possession over the property where the boundary wall was being repaired which clearly shows that the complainant was not the owner of the property. 17. The prosecution evidence is clearly unreliable and in any case, inadequate to establish the charges leveled against the accused. There is no evidence direct or circumstantial, in support of the charges leveled Crl. Rev. No. 1442 of 2010 3 against the accused in the charge sheet.” Having perused entire material available on record, I find that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and there is no reason to take contrary view to the view taken by learned trial Court. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 18.01.2011 JUDGE reena