IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1535 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5th June, 2009 Kuldip Singh @ Pintu … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, Darshan Singh @ Dana son of Kartar Singh, Bindri son of Tej Singh, Bawa Singh son of Faquir Singh, Balbir Singh son of Jaggar Singh and Kuldip Singh @ Pintu have been summoned to stand trial by invoking provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. Statement of Lakhvir Singh PW was recorded. He stated that all the five persons came along with others. In the impugned order it has been noticed that present petitioner Kuldip Singh @ Pintu gave a shot from his pistol, which hit on the left thigh of Kulwant Singh. It has been further stated that Balbir Singh Sarpanch gave a Sabbal blow, which hit Lakhvir Singh on his right heel. Aggrieved against the same, co-accused of the petitioner Balbir Singh @ Thanda filed Criminal Revision No. 1178 of 2009 in this Court, which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on May 6, 2009. To distinguish the case, counsel for the petitioner has raised three arguments. Firstly, it has been stated that petitioner has an alibi as relative of the petitioner was admitted in Silver Oak Hospital and petitioner was at Mohali. It is settled law that plea of alibi is to be proved by the person who raise it. It can only be proved during trial. Therefore, Criminal Revision No. 1535 of 2009 (O&M) investigating agency cannot absolve the petitioner on this score and the Court has rightly summoned the petitioner, giving due credence to the oral evidence. Secondly, it has been stated that injury attributed to the petitioner is not noticed in the inquest. Inquest is for limited purpose to identify the deceased and ascertain the cause of death. Column of the injuries in the inquest cannot supersede the medico-legal evidence. Thirdly, it has been stated that the Doctor, who found the injury attributed to the petitioner, was given-up as won-over. Once, the petitioner has been summoned, he is to be prosecuted. Trial has to start de-novo and the examination of the Doctor will answer the contentions raised by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that role assigned to the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and complainant has made an improvement to this effect. Any improvement made by the witness is in the realm of appreciation. A witness can explain the improvement and justify the same during examination and it is for the Court to assess and evaluate the evidence so led. Hence, no ground is made to formulate different opinion, already expressed by Coordinate Bench in Criminal Revision No. 1178 of 2009. No interference is warranted. Present revision petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 5, 2009 rps 2