IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1994 of 2006 Date of decision: 26th November, 2011 Phool Chand @ Phulla … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Phool Chand @ Phulla. He was named as an accused in a case FIR No.71 dated 13.03.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa under Sections 323, 324, 326, 34 IPC. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa vide its judgment dated 21st May, 2002 held that no blunt injury was found on the person of complainant Banta Singh PW-1, and on this score it acquitted the co-accused namely Jagdish @ Guddu granting him the benefit of doubt. However, the trial Court convicted the petitioner Phool Chand @ Phulla for an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 326 IPC. He was further sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a Criminal Revision No.1994 of 2006 period of one year. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court below vide its judgment dated 18th September, 2006 had dismissed the appeal and had affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court. Complainant Banta Singh PW-1 was examined by Dr.Joginder Singh PW-6, who found the following four injuries on his person: “1. An incised wound of size 4 cm x 2 cm into muscle deep over left side of abdomen just about the anterior superior iliac spine touching the spine. Fresh bleeding was present and X-ray was advised. 2. An incised wound of size 1 cm x .2 cm x into skin deep over left thumb on ventral aspect over destal IP joint. Fresh bleeding was present on cleaning wound. 3. An incised wound of size 1 cm x .2 cm x skin deep over right index finger on palmer aspect in distal ehalynx over pulp. Fresh bleeding was present on cleaning wound. X-ray was advised. 4. An incised wound of size 7.5 cm x .2 cm x superficial skin deep over right middle finger over destal IP joint. Fresh bleeding was present and X-ray was advised.” Injury No.1 was declared grievous as Dr.R.K. Bishnoi PW-3 has stated that he had conducted radiological examination and as per his report Ex.PW3/A he had found a fracture of left iliac crest. Mr. Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed conviction of the petitioner on the following grounds: (a) That there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the report, hence, it cannot be ruled out that the FIR was a result of 2 Criminal Revision No.1994 of 2006 consultations and deliberations and the petitioner has been falsely implicated; (b) That prosecution case has not been believed qua the acquitted accused Jagdish @ Guddu, therefore, it cannot be held that the evidence of complainant Banta Singh PW-1 aspires confidence and this Court should assume that he has falsely implicated the petitioner; (c) That no injury attributed to Jagdish @ Guddu by a blunt weapon was found by Dr.Joginder Singh PW-6, thus, this Court should hold that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version; (d) That Balkaran Singh, eye-witness of the occurrence has been given up by the prosecution and non-examination of this witness is fatal to the prosecution; (e) That Gurdeep Singh, who had produced the present petitioner before the police, has not been examined. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above said submissions. This is a case where the injured complainant Banta Singh PW-1 had suffered four injuries. Injury No.1 was in the abdomen, which has caused fracture of iliac crest. Injured will be the last person to absolve the true assailant and substitute the accused. Furthermore, testimony of complainant Banta Singh PW-1 has received approval of both the courts below. The courts below have found deposition of Banta Singh PW-1 to be truthful qua the petitioner. The revisional Court cannot re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Otherwise also, the maxim ‘Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus’ is alien to the Indian criminal jurisprudence. The benefit of delay in registration of FIR and the 3 Criminal Revision No.1994 of 2006 arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner has been granted to the co-accused. Thus, it cannot be said that the arguments advanced by the counsel shall have any bearing so far as the conviction of the present petitioner is concerned. At this stage, Mr.Brar has stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in March, 1996. A period of more than 15 years has elapsed. The petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial and the same should be construed as a mitigating circumstance. It is further submitted that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was aged about 35 years and now he is in his fifties. Furthermore, the petitioner is sole breadwinner of his family and has a large family to support. Mr.Brar has further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence before or after registration of this case. Taking into consideration sufferance of a protracted trial, age and antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained. With the modification in sentence noticed above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 26, 2011 rps 4