Criminal Revision No. 1561 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1561 of 2003 Date of Decision: 2.5.2011. Pritam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Balwant Singh & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for respondent No.7-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated March 18 th, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby, respondents No.2 to 6 were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 56 dated March 6 th, 1992 under Sections 148, 323, 325, 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal code, Police Station Rania, District Sirsa. 2. In brief, story of the prosecution is that on March 5 th, 1992 at about 2.30 PM an occurrence took place in village Rania inside the tubewell of Jeet Singh brother in law (sister's husband) of Pritam Singh-complainant (PW-4) wherein Pritam Singh received injuries at the hands of the respondents. Balwant Singh-respondent and Gian Singh from the side of the respondent received injuries. The bone of contention was that Jeet Singh brother of Balwant Singh-respondent No.1 was owner of ½ acre of land. He migrated to Thailand. He gave said piece of land to Pritam Singh. Earlier to the occurrence, the said piece of land was in possession of Balwant Singh. Criminal Revision No. 1561 of 2003 2 3. The respondents were charged under Sections 148, 323, 325, 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. They did not plead guilty hence, they were brought to trial. 4. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa by judgment dated September 19 th, 2000 convicted the respondents for the offences for which they were charged. 5. Aggrieved of the same, respondents filed appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa which was accepted by impugned judgment. 6. It was admitted case of the prosecution that in the occurrence, Balwant Singh-respondent No.1 and Gian Singh received injury at the hands of the complainant party. Pritam Singh received ten injuries in the occurrence which were either contusions or abrasions. Out of these injuries, injury received on the right arm was declared grievous after report of the x-ray examination. Balwant Singh received five injuries and Gian Singh received three injuries on their person. The Appellate Court acquitted the respondents taking into consideration the fact that the story propounded by the complainant that he was in possession of ½ acre of land owned by Jeet Singh and was residing in the tubewell with his family members, was found to be fabricated as there was no documentary evidence to prove that at any point of time, the possession of ½ acre of land was given by Jeet Singh to Pritam Singh. Not only that, the electricity connection on the tubewll was also in the name of Balwant Singh. Under these circumstances and taking into consideration the injuries on the person of Balwant Singh and Gian Singh, it was observed by the Appellate Court that the respondents were not the aggressors. They had reasonable apprehension that complainant will cause harm to them and they had the right of self defence which they had not exceeded by the type of force used by them to thwart the designs of complainant. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified. Criminal Revision No. 1561 of 2003 3 7. In view of this, no interference is called for. 8. Dismissed. 2.5.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE