Criminal Revision No. 1330 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1330 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.10.2009 Jeet Ram ..... Petitioner vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no. 1. Mr. BB Sharma, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 to 5. Rajesh Bindal J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, vide which he acquitted respondent nos. 2 to 7 of the charges framed against him. The brief facts are that on 29.10.1994 in the area of Nasirpur, the accused-respondents being the members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object caused simple hurt with sharp edged weapons and drove the tractor so rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, making themselves liable to be punished under Sections 148, 323, 324, 336, 149 IPC. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against accused-respondents. They were charged for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined five witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-respondents stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They examined Halqa Patwari Satish Kumar as DW1. Considering the evidence brought on record in the form of statements of witnesses and documents, learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.2.2007, acquitted the accused- respondents of the charge framed against them. Criminal Revision No. 1330 of 2008 (2) Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner- complainant filed the present revision. After having heard learned counsel for the State as well as accused- respondents and perusing the paper-book, I find no merit in the present revision. As is clear from the judgment of the court below the motive behind the alleged occurrence was the rasta. The land of the parties falls in two different villages. Complainant Jeet Ram has agricultural land in Village Nalipar whereas the land of accused-respondents falls in the revenue estate of Village Nasirpur. The land of the parties situated on the sides of the rasta and it passes through the fields of accused Dalip Singh and ends in the filed of one Mr. Dhingra from whom accused Dalip Singh also purchased the land in question. The main rasta starts from Village Nasirpur and ends at the filed of complainant Jeet Ram. PW4 Jeet Ram and PW5 Chatter Singh have deposed that when they were sitting in their fields then accused persons reached at the spot armed with gandasis and lathis on two tractors fitted with agricultural implements to cultivate the rasta. When they opposed them from doing so, the accused persons fired two shots in air and inflicted injuries with lathies and gandasis on their person and in self defence they also caused injuries to the accused. But in their cross-examination it was admitted that when the incident had taken place accused Jai Gopal and Joginder were ploughing their fields after cutting paddy crop. However, they had not given the particulars of other persons who had allegedly fired shots in the air. The prosecution had also not medically examined any of the accused inspite of the fact that the complainant had caused them injuries with lathis in self defence. It was also the prosecution version that at the time of alleged occurrence, Randhir Singh resident of village Nalipur was present. As has been deposed by the Investigating Officer that Randhir Singh was the relative of the complainant and therefore he was not cited as witness. No independent witness was produced in the witness box by the prosecution. Moreover, the occurrence had taken place in the area of Village Nasirpur and the complainant party belongs to Village Nalipur. Further it has been admitted by the complainant himself that the rasta which is the root cause of the alleged dispute passes through the land of accused Dalip Singh and it ends in his field which he had purchased from one Mr. Dhingra. There being so many discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, the court below, thus, cannot be said to have gone wrong in acquitting the accused-respondents. Criminal Revision No. 1330 of 2008 (3) In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. As the revision petition has been dismissed, the application for condonation of delay of 301 days in filing the revision is also dismissed. 21.10.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge