Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2007 Date of decision:-10.05.2011 Jagroop Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Preetwinder Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.3-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The dispute took place between the petitioner and the accused persons. FIR No.90 dated 23.6.2003 under Sections 325,323,308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sehna on the statement of petitioner and a cross case under Section 308 IPC was got registered by Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder son of Gurnek Singh. Both the parties were acquitted in the trial Court and subsequently Criminal Revision No.1537 of 2007 was filed by Jagroop Singh and Criminal Revision No.1893 of 2008 was filed by Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No.317-MA of 2007. On 22.6.2003 around 8 AM Jagroop Singh was going to his fields then Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder and Sukhpal Singh @ Pal, both accused who were real brothers, met him and attacked him with iron pipe. Sukhpal Singh was Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2007 -2- armed with dang, caused injuries to Jagroop Singh. Jagroop Singh became unconscious and fell down. Sukhwinder Singh and Sukhpal Singh gave him injuries with dang and iron pipe. Jagroop Singh was rushed to Civil Hospital and on his statement FIR No.90 dated 23.6.2003 under Sections 325,323,308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sehna against the accused. The accused were summoned to face the trial. The stand of the accused was that it was the complainant Jagroop Singh and his brother Harpal Singh, who were armed with Kasia and dang caused injuries to them on account of shifting of Khal. Jagroop Singh had examined Dr. Suresh Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala. Ex. PB and PD were the medical opinions given by the doctor. As per statement given by Dr. Suresh Kumar, there were five injuries on the person of Jagroop Singh and out of which, injury Nos.1 and 2 are lecerated bleeding wounds, injury No.3 is reddish contusion and injuries Nos.4 and 5 are to the effect that the patient complains of pain. Injury No.1 was on the head, injury No.2 was on the right side of head of front parietal region. Injury No.3 on the back of the left hand and injury No.4 was on right scapular region and injury No.5 was on the lower back. Dr. Narsi Ram Radkologist made statement on the basis of x-ray report gave opinion that there was fracture on head of fourth matacarpal of left hand and qua other injuries no bone injury or head injury was found in the x-ray. From the evidence of the doctors it was clear that injury No.3 was grievous in nature and remaining were simple. After going through the entire case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the investigating officer was not able to analyzed version and concluded that which of the party was aggressor. There is total lack of evidence in this regard. There is delay in recording and registration of FIR by Sukhwinder Singh, who recorded first on the point of time and made statement on 23.6.2003. None of the witness alleged to have been present at the time of occurrence as examined by Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 2007 -3- the prosecution, which has created doubt in the prosecution version. Both the accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them on account of the failure of the prosecution to prove its case. The revision filed by the petitioners is pending in this Court, a compromise has been effected. After going through the judgment of trial Court, this Court is of the view that the dispute had occurred between the parties due to alleged dispute of filling of the earth in the khal (water-course) in the land of Jagroop Singh. In view of the compromise and affidavit of Jagroop Singh, the compromise is valid and without any pressure or coercion. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 , the petitioner is allowed to withdraw this revision petition. Disposed of accordingly. May 10, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE