IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.206 of 2008 Date of decision : June 3, 2009 Mohan Lal alias Nita Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Present revision petition, under Sections 391 and 401 Cr. P.C, has been filed by petitioner Mohan Lal, who has been convicted of offences, punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for each of the two offences. Initially, he was convicted of two more offences, under Sections 341 and 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence, under Section 341 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence, under Section 506 IPC, by the trial Court, but the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, has set aside the conviction and sentence for these two later mentioned offences. Revision petitioner seeks reversal of the judgment of the trial Magistrate as also that of the Sessions Judge, as according to him, the charge is not proved. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of the revision petition, are like this. PW-10 Yogesh Raj and the revision petitioner used to be friends. It appears that PW-10 Yogesh Raj was employed in the Army. He came on leave in the month of July, 2003. He did not invite the revision petitioner for liquor party about which the petitioner complained to him. PW-10 Yogesh Raj told the petitioner that he had to come from the Army in a hurry and so he could not bring liquor from the canteen. On 19.7.2003, petitioner arranged liquor and called PW-10 Yogesh Raj to his house for a drinking bout, during day time. They kept on consuming liquor till evening. In the evening, the two went to the road side, as the complainant wanted to board a bus for his place. On the road when complainant noticed that the petitioner was staggering because of influence of liquor, he asked him to walk straight so that he was not hit by any vehicle, moving on the road. This annoyed the petitioner and he started scuffling with the complainant. He then took out a knife and inflicted an injury on his forehead measuring 3.5” x ½” x ½ “. Matter was reported to the police. Complainant Yogesh Raj was got medically examined. On completion of investigation, revision petitioner was sent up for trial. 3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined a number of witnesses, including complainant Yogesh Raj and PW-9 Dr. P.C. Sharma, who conducted the medico legal examination of the complainant and observed the following injuries: “1. A 3 and ½” long incised wound on the right side of the forehead placed obliquely. The maximum width at the centre was about ½” and depth of the wound was also about ½” …3… 2. A 1” long incised wound on the left side of forehead placed vertically near the root of nose. 3. There were three abrasions about 2” each on the left cheek.” 4. Learned trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted the revision petitioner of offences, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 IPC and sentenced him, as aforesaid. In appeal, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the trial Court, learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence for offences, under Section 341 and 506 IPC, but upheld his conviction and sentence for offences, under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and also perused the record. 6. Testimony of complainant PW-10 Yogsh Raj that he was assaulted by the petitioner and inflicted an injury, by means of a knife, is corroborated by the testimony of PW-9 Dr. P.C. Sharma. Petitioner and the complainant are friends. Complainant had no axe to grind by falsely implicating the petitioner. Also, I do not find anything on record, indicating that PW-10 Yogesh Raj has falsely implicated the revision petitioner. However, from the statement of PW-10 Yogesh Raj it is clear that only one blow was given by the petitioner to him and the same was given by means a knife. Knife had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner, during the course of investigation. The same is Ext.P-3. PW-10 Yogesh Raj stated that the wound was caused by this very knife. Since PW-10 Yogesh Raj has not stated that any other blow was given to him or any other injury was caused to him, I am of the considered view that his conviction and sentences for offence, …4… under Section 323 IPC are also not sustainable. However, as noticed hereinabove, the evidence proves to the hilt the charge of causing hurt by means of a sharp edged weapon, punishable under Section 324 IPC. Hence, petitioner’s conviction and sentence for offence, under Section 324 IPC, call for no interference. 7. As a result of the above discussion, appeal is partly allowed. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence for offence, under Section 323 IPC are set aside. However, his conviction and sentence for offence, under Section 324 IPC are upheld. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. June 3, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J