Crl.Rev.No.603/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.603/2010 Date of decision: 24.9.2010. Jaswant Singh and others ....................Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another. .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mrs.Rupinder Kaur Thind,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala,AAG Punjab. Jaswant Singh.J. The present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC is directed against the judgment dated 16.1.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 passed by learned JMIC, convicting and sentencing the accused petitioners under Sections 326/325/148/149 IPC was upheld. Briefly noticed the facts of the present case are that case FIR No.91 dated 29.8.1997 under Sections 324, 323, 148/149 IPC, PS Islamabad, Amritsar was recorded by ASI Tejinder Singh on the statement of injured complainant Lahora Singh, who was admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital,Amritsar. It was stated by Lahora Crl.Rev.No.603/2010 2 Singh,injured complainant that he and his brother Mohan Singh were engaged in dairy business. One Paltu, who was serving under the complainant since long left the job and started working in the dairy of Jassa Singh-petitioner. Said Paltu owed some money to complainant Lahora Singh. Petitioner-Jaswant Singh @ Jassa Singh undertook to return the money taken by Paltu to complainant Lahora Singh. On 25.8.1997, complainant Lahora Singh, his brother Mohan Singh and one Ajit Singh went to the dairy of petitioner-Jaswant Singh @ Jassa to get the promised money. On demand, petitioner Jassa Singh stated that he was not to give any money to the complainant and while abusing the complainant party went inside his house. Thereafter, petitioner Jaswant Singh @ Jassa Singh came out of his house duly armed with a kirpan, to be followed by petitioner Billa Singh armed with dang, Jeeta armed with Gandasi, Hira Singh armed with dang and Malaghar Singh,who was empty handed exhorted the petitioners to catch hold of the complainant party and a lesson be taught to them for demanding money. It was stated by complainant Lahora Singh that thereafter the petitioners inflicted injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons and on making hue and cry by them, the accused ran away with their respective weapons. The said statement of Lahora Singh was the basis of FIR, referred to above, which was investigated. After investigations challan was presented against the petitioners and charges framed under Sections 148, 326, 325, 324, 323 IPC. On the basis of evidence available on record the petitioners were Crl.Rev.No.603/2010 3 convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Heard. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the occurrence allegedly took place on 25.8.1997 at about 2/2.30 pm and the FIR was recorded on 29.8.1997, thus there is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR. It is thus contended, that the delay in lodging the FIR raises doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case, Radiologist was not examined and in the absence of his examination the injuries on the person of complainant and his brother cannot be said to have been proved. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that since weapons of offence were neither produced nor put to any of the prosecution witnesses, hence the entire trial was vitiated. On the other hand, learned State counsel has stated that the orders passed by the Courts below are just and legal and based on material produced on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has come in evidence that after the alleged occurrence complainant Lahora Singh and his brother Mohan Singh were admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital,Amritsar due to injuries received by Crl.Rev.No.603/2010 4 them. Injured witness Lahora Singh had recevied as many as 5 injuries out of which two were caused by sharp edged weapon whereas injuries no.3 to 5 were caused with blunt weapon. As per x-ray report of Radiologist, the chest injury on the person of Lahora Singh showed fracture of 11th rib on left side of the chest and there was also fracture of left patella. Injuries no.1 to 3 were simple in nature and 4 to 5 were grievous in nature. Mohan Singh, brother of complainant Lahora Singh had received 9 injuries, out of which one was a fracture of the right parietal bone skull and one more fracture of right forearm was shown in the x-ray report. No doubt the occurrence had taken place on 25.8.1997 and the FIR was recorded on 29.8.1997. In view of the number and nature of injuries, medical treatment was first priority on the part of the injured rather than reporting to police at the first instance. Though there is delay in lodging the FIR, but the same pales into insignificance as it cannot be believed that injured person would let go the guilty scot free and name someone else falsely. Hence the delay in lodging cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. As regards non-examination of radiologist, the argument is fallacious. It has come on record that prosecution has examined PW3 Dr.Gurmanjit Rai, who proved the MLRs of both the injured persons and on the basis of the report of the Radiologist gave opinion about the nature of injuries. Thus, the non-examination of Radiologist would not cause any dent in the prosecution case. Crl.Rev.No.603/2010 5 Regarding the non-production of weapons of offence during trial and not putting the same to the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to produce the case property during the course of trial and no fault lies with complainant Lahora Singh and his brother Mohan Singh if they were not put to the case property when the other evidence clearly proved causing of injuries. No other point has been urged before me. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 24.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge