CRR No.1355 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1355 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.02.2011 Ratni Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) CRM No.26180 of 2010 For the reasons mentioned, delay of 105 days in filing the revision is condoned. CM stands allowed. CRR No.1155 of 2010 This revision petition is filed for against the judgment dated 12/13.8.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal, acquitting the accused/respondent Balesh Kumar while convicting other three accused for an offence under Sections 323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Brief facts of the present case are that on 27.11.2000, complainant Miyan Singh got recorded his statement as per rapat No.23 dated 27.11.2000 wherein it was stated that he is an agriculturist. There CRR No.1355 of 2010 (O&M) -2- is a dispute of the land between them and the Panchayat of village Samora. On 27.11.2000, he was going on his motorcycle from Ramba bus stand to village Kheri Maan Singh. At 5 o'clock, when he had reached near the water tank in village Samora, he found that the people of village Samoa were ploughing the Gohar adjoining to his fields which goes towards his fileds. When he stopped his motorcycle there, the accused Surender Bhushan, Balesh, Jai Singh and Soma, all resident of vilage Samora came there armed with lathies in their hands and attacked him with lathies which struck of his head, right hand, right shoulder and on the right side of his back. This incident was witnessed by Jai Singh son of Ram Chander who was also coming from Karnal. During this, these persons also caused loss to his motorcycle. The reason for this was a dispute regarding the land. On this statement of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented. In support of its case, prosecution examined Miyan Singh as PW1, Jai Singh as PW2, Dr. Sham Wadhwa, SMO, General Hospital Karnal, as PW3, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Private Practitioner as PW4, Inspector Khushal Singh as PW5 and Sub Inspector Sahab Singh, Investigating Officer as PW6 and closed the evidence. Accused were examined under the mandatory provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused examined Vijay Kumar Singla Computer Operator-cum-Clerk as DW1, and Raj Pal as DW2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, learned Magistrate acquitted accused/respondent No.2 of the charges having observed that presence of CRR No.1355 of 2010 (O&M) -3- accused/respondent No.2 was highly doubtful in view of the fact accused Balesh was present in the college where he was serving and was not granted any station leave. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the record. As per the defence witness No.1 Balesh Kumar accused/respondent No.2 was present in college. Tendency to implicate all the family members cannot be ruled out. Vishnu Dutt father of the accused Balesh is one of the accused and has been found guilty. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court ordinarily should not reassess the evidence and even if two views are possible, view taken by the learned trial Court should not be disturbed. In the present case, I do not find that view taken by the trial Court requires any disturbance. No ground to interfere with order passed by the learned Court below is made out. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge February 09, 2011 R.S.