Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006 Date of decision: March 18, 2011 Ram Chander ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioner/accused, Ram Chander, was convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC by the learned JMIC, Rewari, vide judgment dated 19.03.2001 and was sentenced as under: - Sr. No. Under Section Sentence Imposed Fine 1. 452 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 500/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 1000/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. The petitioner/accused preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006 2 Judge, Rewari, vide judgment dated 13.01.2006. He has preferred the present revision petition against the conviction and sentence. As per the prosecution version, Hardwari, father of the accused, had taken a loan of `5,000/- from Samoti Devi wife of Mohan Lal- complainant (PW-2) in the year 1986. The said Samoti Devi had already died but the loan amount was not re-paid by the accused. The complainant wanted to perform the marriage of his daughter and, as such, on 28.3.1995 at about 8 a.m. went to the house of Hardwari for taking back the said loan amount, who asked him to come at 10/11 a.m. When he again went to his house at about 11 a.m., he found that a number of relatives of Hardwari were present and all of them were in drunkard condition. When he demanded the money, the accused and Hardwari misbehaved with him and refused to re-pay the loan amount. On the same day at about 9 a.m., he was sleeping in a tin shed constructed in his fields and the door thereof was open. The accused came to that place, holding a dagger in his hand, and gave a blow with the help thereof in the middle of his forehead. He raised a cry, which attracted his son Ramphal (PW-2) and Maha Singh to the spot and the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. He was removed to PHC, Khol, where he was medically examined by Dr. Dharmender Kumar (PW-4). The injuries found on his person were detailed in the medico legal report Ex. PW4/A. The doctor sent his ruqa Ex. PW3/A to the police station and on receipt thereof, Rajpal, HC (PW-3), came to that place and recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/A. After recording the police proceedings, he sent that statement to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 324 Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006 3 and 452 IPC. The Head Constable went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. PW3/C. The accused was arrested on 29.3.1995. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 324 and 452 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, the prosecution examined Mohan Lal (PW-1), Ramphal (PW-2), Rajpal, HC (PW-3) and Dr. Dharmender Kumar (PW-4). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded that he did not cause any injury to the complainant, who got lodged false case against him, in connivance with the police. The accused was called upon to enter on his defence. He examined Bhawani Sahai (DW-1) in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the accused tired to assail the conviction of the accused by submitting that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions and that itself is a ground for disbelieving the prosecution story. According to the complainant himself, the injury was caused to him on 28.3.1995, whereas the doctor at the time of his medical examination on 27.3.1995 had already found that injury. According to him, Maha Singh, who was an independent witness, was required to be examined by the prosecution and in the absence of examination that witness, the Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006 4 conviction of the accused cannot be sustained, which is based upon the statements of interested witnesses. In the last, he submitted that in case the conviction is to be maintained, then the accused be given the benefit of probation, as he is standing his trial for the last more than 10 years. Learned State counsel has tried to controvert these submissions of the learned counsel for the accused, by referring to the evidence produced by the prosecution. He also submitted that non-examination of Maha Singh cannot be made a ground for acquittal, as the statement of the complainant/injured was fully corroborated by his son Ram Phal, who was one of the eye witnesses, and had seen the accused running away from the spot, after occurrence. The prosecution version in the court was unfolded by Mohan Lal (PW-1). He categorically stated that this occurrence took place on 27.3.1995 at about 9/9.30 p.m. According to him, he was sleeping in the tin shed constructed in the fields, when the accused came there with a dagger in his hand and gave a blow with the help thereof in the middle of his forehead. He raised an alarm, which attracted Maha Singh and his son, who saw the accused running away from the spot. It is categorical statement of Ramphal (PW-2) that on hearing the cry of his father, he went to his father and found the accused running away from the spot. No doubt, he is closely related to the complainant but that cannot be a ground for disbelieving him or for not placing reliance on his statement. It is now well settled that reliance can be placed on the statement of the related witness, if the same is found to be trustworthy. A relative will be the last witness to allow the actual culprit to go scot free and to implicate someone falsely. The way in Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006 5 which Ramphal (PW-2) stood the test of cross-examination, full reliance is to be placed on his testimony. The non-examination of Maha Singh cannot be made a ground to disbelieve or discard the statement of the complainant or this witness. The contradictions so pointed out by the counsel for the accused are not so. It is not the statement of the complainant that the occurrence had taken place on 28.3.1995. As already noticed, the occurrence had already taken place on 27.3.1994. No doubt, the FIR was recorded on 28.3.1995, but the same was on account of the fact that the statement of the complainant was recorded by the Head Constable after midnight and it had already become 28.3.1995. When the statement of the complainant was recorded at midnight, it was quite natural for him to state that the occurrence had taken place on that very day. After examination of the record, it has been found that the findings recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. There is no ground to interfere in the same, while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused is a previous convict. After his conviction by the trial court, his statement was recorded before passing the order of sentence. At that time, he stated that his wife and mother are residing with him and are dependent upon him. He has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 days and has stood protracted trial for all these years. Keeping in view all these facts, I think it proper and expedient to release him on probation instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The sentence so Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006 6 imposed upon the accused is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation on his executing personal bond in the sum of `10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during that period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. He is directed to pay `10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the injuries caused by him. The fine, if already deposited, shall be adjusted towards that compensation. The bonds are to be furnished and the compensation is to be paid/deposited in the trial court within a period of three months, failing which this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. March 18, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) Rajan/prem JUDGE