Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2008 Date of Decision:May 06, 2009 Jai Parkash and another ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.U.K.Agnihotri,Advocate, for the petitioners *** SABINA, J. Respondents No. 2 to 5 were tried for an offence under Section 323, 324, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City in FIR No. 334 dated 16.12.1991 registered at Police Station Sadar Ambala. Vide judgment dated 3.3.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City respondents No. 2 to 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323/34 IPC, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- each Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2008 -2- under Section 325/34 IPC. Respondents No. 2 to 5 preferred an appeal. In the appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ambala vide its judgment dated 11.12.2007 acquitted respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 of the charges framed against them. Respondent No. 4-Avtar Singh was ordered to be released on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act as well as under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Hence, the complainant has filed the present revision petition. The prosecution story as noticed by the trial court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that a DDR No. 15 dated 15.12.1991 Ex. PA was lodged by PW Jai Parkash in which he stated that he was resident of village Addomajra and was an agriculturist. He further stated that the marriage party (Barat) of son of Chaudhary Amar Singh son of Chanan Singh of his village went to village Fatehgarh Jatwar. Jai Narain, Rameshwar son of Bhagtu and sons of aunt of the complainant also went in the marriage party and Mohinder Singh, Joginder Singh son of Kartara, Gurnam Singh also went in the marriage party and the marriage party (Barat) came back in the village at 7 p.m. A lalkara was raised by Avtar Singh son of Gurnam Singh 'Pandito Bhar Niklo' and on hearing the lalkara the complainant came out from his house. As a moment the complainant came out from the house, Avtar Singh inflicted a brick bat on the head of PW Jai Parkash. The accused Joginder, Mohinder caught hold the brother of PW/complainant Jai Parkash and these accused persons also Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2008 -3- inflicted the lathi blows on the head of Dev Raj. The multiple injuries were also suffered by Jai Narain. In the meantime, on hearing the noise of altercation, number of people assembled there and they rescued them from the accused persons. Otherwise the accused persons give more beatings to them. There upon the complainant along with his brother went to the police post for lodging the report for giving of beatings by the accused persons namely Mohinder Singh, Joginder Singh, Avtar Singh and others. The investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the court under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused Naib Singh, Avtar Singh, Puran Singh and accused persons namely Mohinder Singh, Manmohan Singh, Joginder Singh and Gurnam Singh were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that appellate court had erred in acquitting the respondents. Learned appellate court has observed that initially when the statement of the complainant was recorded, names of Naib Singh, Manmohan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurnam Singh were not mentioned in Ex. P-A. However, later on the names of said persons were disclosed by the complainant. Initially, only names of Avtar Singh, Mohinder Singh, Joginder Singh were disclosed by the complainant. In these circumstances, learned appellate court has observed that there were two versions before the Court. The accused as well as the complainant party belong to the same village. Hence, the fact that the names of Naib Singh, Manmohan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurnam Singh were not mentioned initially by the Crl. Revision No. 2119 of 2008 -4- complainant, their participation in the alleged occurrence is doubtful. It has also been observed by the appellate court that there was prior enmity between the parties. On this account there is possibility that their names have been introduced later on after due deliberations. In these circumstances, learned appellate court had rightly acquitted respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 by giving them benefit of doubt. Respondent No. 4-Avtar Singh was ordered to be released on probation as the appellate court was of the opinion that he was facing criminal proceedings for the last 15 years and the only injury attributed to him was that he gave blow with a stick on the person of Jai Parkash. Reasons given by the appellate court while acquitting respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 of the charge framed against them and releasing respondent No. 4 on probation are sound reasons. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE May 06, 2009 PARAMJIT