IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2002 Date of Decision : March 04, 2010 Usha Rani ....Petitioner Versus Shiv Charan and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.6. T.P.S. MANN, J. Respondents No.1 to 5 were tried for offences under Sections 323/324/34 IPC on the allegations that on 23.11.1999 at about 10.30 A.M. they had caused injuries to Usha Rani and her daughter Renu. Vide judgment dated 16.9.1992, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh held that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and, accordingly, acquitted them of the charges against them. Aggrieved of the same, Usha Rani filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2002 -2- According to the prosecution, Usha Rani alongwith her husband Naresh Kumar was living on the upper portion of the house whereas the ground floor was occupied by her husband's uncle Shiv Charan, his three sons and one grandson. According to Usha Rani, the floor of the portion in her occupation was in a broken condition and, therefore, repairing work was going on. However, on 23.11.1999 at about 10.30 A.M., Shiv Charan and Nanak Chand came there and asked her about the work as without obtaining their consent, how she could get the repairs done. In the meanwhile, Gian Chand, Ashok Kumar and Rakesh Kumar accused also came there and started throwing the iron angles from the floor. When she objected to the same, Ashok Kumar gave a blow of angle on her left arm. Gian Chand gave a blow with a stone on her left eye. Rakesh Kumar pushed her whereupon she fell down. When her daughter Renu came to rescue her, she was given a blow with a stone by Ashok Kumar. Shiv Charan and Nanak Chand abused her in a filthy language. On the statement made by Usha Rani in CHC, Nuh, which was recorded by HC Govind Ram, FIR No.288 dated 24.11.1999 was registered at Police Station, Nuh against respondents No. 1 to 5 for offences under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police against the accused. Copies of the final report were supplied to the accused persons free of cost. All the accused were thereafter Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2002 -3- charged for the aforementioned offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Usha Rani complainant as PW1, Summy as PW2, Renu as PW3, SI Kaptan Singh as PW4, Dr. M.S. Ranga as PW5, ASI Sabha Ram as PW6, HC Govind Ram as PW7 and further relied upon complaint Ex.PW1/A, copy of MLR of Usha Rani Ex.PW5/A, copy of MLR of Renu Ex.PW5/B, medical ruqa Ex.PW5/C, FIR PW6/A, endorsement on ruqa Ex.PW6/B, opinion of doctor Ex.PW7/A and site plan Ex.PW7/B. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they pleaded their false implication and claimed innocence. In defence, they exmined L.N. Kulshretha as DW1 and relied upon copy of service book Ex.D1 and record of attendance Ex.D2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court held that the prosecution had not been successful in proving its case. Accordingly, the accused/respondents were acquitted of the charges against them. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. Though the prosecution examined Usha Rani as PW1, Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2002 -4- Summy as PW2 and Renu as PW3 in support of the ocular account yet Summy PW2 did not support the prosecution case. He specifically stated that he had neither seen the accused causing injuries nor he had made any statement to the police. The testimonies of Usha Rani PW1 and Renu PW3 were found to be containing lacunaes and infirmities, besides not being corroborated by any independent evidence. One Rajinder was shown to be present at the time of the occurrence but he was given up by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. In fact, as per statement of DW1 and documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, he was shown to be present at the time of the occurrence at Mehrauli which was far away from Nuh where the occurrence had taken place. For that reason the prosecution chose not to examine Rajinder in support of the ocular account. The occurrence in question had taken place at 10.30 A.M. When in the evening Naresh Kumar returned from Sohna to his house he took his wife Usha Rani and daughter Renu to the hospital at Nuh. Usha Rani and Renu were medico legally examined by Dr. M.S. Ranga PW5 at 11.20 P.M. and 11.40 P.M, respectively. The injuries on their persons were found to have been caused within six hours. Therefore, it cannot be said that both Usha Rani and Renu had received injuries at 10.30 A.M. Learned trial Court also found it as a matter of fact that there was a delay of about 14 hours in lodging of the FIR and the explanation tendered by the prosecution that the husband of the complainant was Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2002 -5- away to Sohna has not been believed keeping in view the fact that there were sufficient contradictions regarding injuries, time of arrival of husband of the complainant and blood stained clothes of PW1 Usha Rani. I have perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The entire evidence examined by the prosecution had been considered threadbare so as to come to a conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. Resultantly, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. The revision filed by Usha Rani is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 04, 2010 JUDGE satish