48 4 1a INTHE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CriminalAppealNo12eSBA of 1999 Dateof decisionl 214 September 2009 Stateof Punjab Appellant Versus m AlguRam and others 0 C CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGHAHLUWALIA I Presentl None C5 I KANWALJIT SINGHAHLUWALIA J Z State of Punjabhas assailed the judgmentdated 9 December1998 passedby the Judicial Magistratest Classl Patiala I wherebyAIguRam son of RaghuNath KhushdiI son of AlguRam and a5 Asha daughterof Algu Ram were acquittedThey were named as accusedin case FlR Nol dated 14021994 registered at Police Station 7 Z KotwaliPatiala under Sections 3231325134 IPC Q RajKumar Mohindroo son of Sham Lal Mohindroo made a statementExPA on the basis of which DailyDiaryReportNo 28 was recorded on Februar 1994at Police StationKotwali Patiala It was statedin the reportSO madethat informant was postedas Professorin ThaparCollegePatiala He was havinghis permanentresidence in PuraniKotwali Chowk Patiala The wall of his house adjoinedthe house of the accused The accusedAlguRam was residing there astenant On 2February1994 at 8O pn he alongwith his wife Veena Rani was in front of his house when AlguRam and his son Khushdil came armedwith Sotis and started causingthem injuriesAlguRam gave soti ANITA RANI 2014.12.24 14: 05 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 Criminal AppealNoe812SBA of 1999 2 4 blows on the Ieft wrist below waistleft elbow and rightknee Khushdil 1 son of AlguRam gave Soti blows on Ieft knee and Iittleabove the Ieft ankle on the IegAlguRam also caused injurieson len hand and wrist on the person of Veena Rani wife of the At that time Asha daughter of AlguRam also came at the spotand gavea Soti blow on the head of Veena Rar Khushdii son of AlguRam also gaveSoti blowson m the indexfingerof righthand and IeftIegof Veena Rani AmarjitSinghson 0 of SukhdevSinghwho was attractedat the spot gotthe and C accused separatedAccording to the the cause of grudge I C5 was that accused wanted to raise construction on the common wall The I panywas sentto the hospital for medico Iegalexamination Z After reportof the doctor formal FlR was registered The accused were sent for trial On 4 July 1994 theywere CC charged bythe Courtof Judicial st ClasslPatialafor having I 08 caused simplehurt to Raj Kumar Mohindroo and Veena Rani under Section323 IPC AlguRam and KhushdiIwere also chargedfor offences vn under Section 325 IPC for havingcaused grievoushurt to Raj Kumar Z tl Mohindrooand Veena Rani The accused pleadednot guiltyand claimed trial on 12 November 1998 the chargesheet was amended on the basis of evidenceadduced by the prosecutionIn the amended chargesheet it was stated that on 2 Februar 1994 at 30 Pem Ill the area of Purani Kotwali Patiaia AlguRam caused hurtto RajKumarbymeans of Soti and therebycommiuedoHence under Section 325 IPC whereas Khushdil and Asha commined oHence under Section 324 read with section 34 IPC The second chargeframedwas that Khushdil caused grievoushurt to Raj Kumar and Veena Rani and ANITA RANI 2014.12.24 14: 05 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 Criminal AppealNoe812SBA of 1999 V therebycommitted 0Henceunder Section 325 IPC whereas other two accused ie AIguRam and Asha were chargedwith the aid of section 34 IPC Theywere also chargedfor havingcaused simpleinjuryfallingunder Section323 IPC The prosecutionexamined Veena Rani as PWal RajKumar Mohindrooappeared as PWe2 Dr ShingaraSinghappearedas Pv W who examined both the injuredHe opinedthat there was a 0 fractureof base of proximalphalanxof Iittlefingeranother fracture of C shaft of Ieftforth meta carpaland a fractureof base of fifth meta Carpalon 0 the personof Veena Rani He furtheropinedthat there was a fractureof neck of Ieft fifth meta carpalon the person of Raj Kumar PW4 Z DrRavinder SinghRishi medico Iegallyexamined Veena Rani and Raj Kumar The injuriessuffered by them have been detailedin para seven r 71 of the trial CourtjudgmentThe accused denied the prosecution case I 08 and pleadedfalse ao The trial Coutt formulatedan opinionthat DrRavinderSingh 7 Rishi who examinedthe injuredhad not opinedregarding Z the natureof the injuriesHe had keptthe injuries under observationARer 0 the Xerayreportwas received he had not deposedin the Coutt whether the injuries were declared grievousor not The trial Coun was of the View that it was incumbentupon the doctor to take into consideration Xay reportand givehis opinionThe argumentadvancedbyAssistantPublic Prosecutorthat DrShingara SinghPW had found a fracture therefore it should be inferredthat injuries are grievouswas also not acceptedand the trial Court held as under 13 PW8 Shingara Singhhas provedon record ExPW31Aand ExPW318 but this fact in itself is not sufficientto prove the nature of the injuriesThe doctor who ANITA RANI 2014.12.24 14: 05 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21 CriminalAmlealNoe812SBA of 1999 1 4 conducted the medico Iegalexaminationwas dutybound to go through the xray reportand givehis opinionregarding nature of injuriesMoreover the statement of Shingara Singhis not free from the doubt since In his crossexamination he has admitted thatoriginalregisterregarding thexray examination of Smteena Rani and RajKumar is not signedbyhim If the originalreportsin the register are not signedbythe concerned doctor his opinionregardingthe presence of fractureof his 1 reportmentioned on the papers bearingskiagrams Ioosesits Moreover neither PWa4 DtlRavinderSinghRishi 0 C nor PWe3 DShingaraSinghwere ever shown the weaponof I offenceso as to enabie them the specificopinionregarding C5 the injurieshavingbeen caused by the weaponused by the I accused in the occurrence These doctors in their cross examinationhowever deposedthat injuries on the persons of Z injuredcan be theresult of fall on a hard surfaceobject 3Z r The trial Court also returned a findingthat since no head 08 injurywas foundon the personof PW4 Veena Rani which was auributed to Asha Rani thereforeno reiiancecan be placedupon their testimony 0 Z Whether the reasons givenby the trial Court regarding Qm acquittal of the accused were sound or not before any opinioncould be formulatedbythis Court a perusalof the record revealed that about ten years ago a SingleBench of this Court while Criminal Revision No 147 of 1999preferredbythe hadobserved that thereis no illegality in the impugnedjudgmentand the revision petition Was dismissed The order passedbythe SingleBench of this Coun on 18 May 1999 reads as underl Crl Rev No 147 of 1999 Mr Arihant Jain and MrArun Jindal Advocates for thepetitioner A1ht ANITA RANI 2014.12.24 14: 05 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22 CriminalAmeal Noe812SBAof 1999 9e This is a criminal revision and has been directed againstthe judgmentdated 912 1998 passedby JudiciaI Magistrate Ist Class Patiala whoacquitted the respondents for thereasons givenin para nos 17 and 18 of the which reads as underl 17 A perusalof ExW41A depictthat injuredSmt Veena Rani was examinedat 1110 1n on 2294 whereas injuredRaj Kumar as per ExWe41B was 1 r examined on the same date at 1115 pm The onlytime gap Ieft betweenthe examinationof thesetwo persons 0 0 IS of 5 minutes The doctor who medico Iegally I examined Smt Veena Rani mighthave consumed C5 sufficienttime in injurieson her person and I recording the medicoIegalreportThe said work could have not been completedin just314minutesand this Z fact also casts a doubtin theprosecutionversion 0 18 AS P VSrSIOO 9ivenbYPWS Sl BhupinderSingh I he has preparedroughsite planon 15294 but his 08 version stands falsifiedby PW2 Shri Raj Kumar who r has admittedin his cross examination that on 15284 the policehas recorded the statement of Smt Veena 7 Z Rani and excepther examinationthe policedid not do any other work This fact also casts doubt in the prosecutionversion 1 1 do not see any illegality In the judgment Dismissed Sdle L Anandl 181999 Judge A perusalof section 401 of CrPC reveals that a revisionai Court can also exercise the powers of a Court of appeal Once the judgment of acquittalhas been upheldby this Court in appealagainst acuittal this Court shall refrain from anyother opinionas it ANITA RANI 2014.12.24 14: 05 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 23 CriminalAppealNoe812SBAof 1999 r will not onlycause judicialembarrassmentbut otherwisealso the High Court beingone Coun can exercise once only to a Judgeof thisCourt ten years ago therewas no in the impugned judgmentTherefore this Coun is constrainednot to formulateany differentopinion In view of this no interferenceis warranted and the present m r appealis dismissed 0 C KANWALJIT S 4GHAHLUWALIAj I JUDGE 0 2 Kt 2009 li rps I Z OJ 2 1 r I 0 08 V2 Z Il ANITA RANI 2014.12.24 14: 05 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document