IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1310 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 26, 2011 Mahender Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 12.12.2006, had convicted the accused- respondents No.2 to 5, under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. However, on appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment dated 6.10.2007, had acquitted them of the charges framed against them. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 20.7.2000 at 9.30 a.m. And the FIR was recorded on the same day. It has been further stated that it was a cross-version case. The respondent party had also filed a complaint which was dismissed. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that both the parties are closely related to each other inasmuch as accused Ravinder and Parveen are real nephews whereas accused Savitri is the sister in law of the complainant Mahender Singh. The ocular version does not fit in with the medical evidence. As per the complainant, the accused had caused 5-6 injuries with darati, daw and gandasi while using them from sharp side. But, as per medical evidence, there are only two incised wounds which also appear to be superficial in nature. To the contrary, when three sharp edged weapons were used, there should have been at least three injuries caused with the sharp edged weapons but only two incised wounds were found. The doctor has particularly mentioned that as per x-ray report, there was no fracture. The doctor has not mentioned any depth of the injuries. Out of the six injuries, one is abrasion and other complaint of Crl. Revision No. 1310 of 2008 (O&M) -2- *** pain. The ocular version given by the complainant Mahender Singh, besides being contrary to the medical evidence has not been supported by any independent witness. The Appellate Court appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. It is well settled by now that if two views are possible, then the view favouring to the accused should be accepted. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. August 26, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge