Criminal Revision No. 1307 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1307 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2009 Hakam Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The complainant has approached this Court challenging the judgment of the learned court below, whereby the accused-respondents No. 2 to 7 have been acquitted. Briefly, the facts of the case are that allegedly a dispute arose between the petitioner and his cousin brother-Ranjit Singh and others on the question of land of Ruri. In that dispute, Gian Singh and Ranjit Singh caused injuries to the mother of the petitioner. A case was got registered, wherein both the parties were bailed out. On 27.6.1998, the petitioner along with his mother- Gurmail Kaur was present in the fields. At that time, respondent No. 2 came there and started damaging the standing paddy crop. An altercation took place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 went to his house. After some time, respondents No. 2 to 7 armed with weapons came there and caused injuries to the petitioner and his mother. The said respondents also caused injuries to Bhupinder Singh, who came there to rescue the complainant and his mother. On the statement of the complainant, a case under Sections 324/323/148/149 IPC was registered in the police station. Respondents No. 2 to 7 faced trial under Sections 326/325/323/324/34 IPC. Vide impugned judgment, they were acquitted. That is how the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case having been proved by leading cogent evidence beyond doubt and the injuries suffered by the petitioner and other injured were corroborated with medical evidence and other oral witnesses, but in spite of that respondents No. 2 to 7 have been acquitted. Criminal Revision No. 1307 of 2006 [2] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. No doubt, the petitioner-complainant had led evidence to prove his case, however, there were lot of discrepancies in the evidence led by him, if the same is considered vis-a-vis the evidence led by the accused in defence, on the basis of which it could very well be opined that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. One of the accused was not even present in the village at the time of occurrence as it was proved on record that he was present at Cooperative Society Depot in a different village at the time of fight. This had put a dent in the story projected by the complainant. Further the prosecution version was doubted on the basis of other evidence led on record in defence, where a number of villagers had stated that the case put up by the complainant was not the correct version. It was also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing that there was a cross case registered against the petitioner and others as well and in that they were acquitted and the judgment has attained finality. Considering the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned court below acquitting respondents No. 2 to 7 in the present case. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.8.2009 mk