In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.2388 of 2009 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:9.3.2010 Surjit Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Tarsem Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby the respondents-Darshan Singh and Satpal Singh sons of Jaswant Singh have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 452, 308 and 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). The FIR in the case was registered on the statement of Surjit Kaur (petitioner) who stated that on 10.7.2006 at about 8.30 p.m., Sandeep Singh son of respondent No.1-Darshan Singh was fixing `Kundi' on the electric wires leading to the house of complainant. As a result of the same, the light in their house started sparking. Petitioner-Surjit Kaur came out and saw that Sandeep Singh was fiddling with the electric wires, she restrained him from doing so. Sandeep Singh insisted that he will do the same and uttered undesirable language. In the meanwhile, respondents-Darshan Singh and Satpal Singh came and also uttered undesirable language. The Cr. Rev. No.2388/2009 (O&M) [2] said three persons, namely, Sandeep Singh, and respondents Darshan and Satpal Singh got into altercation with the complainant-petitioner Surjit Kaur. When the complainant came forward, Darshan Singh (respondent No.1) pushed her and Satpal Singh (respondent No.2) gave a `Gandasa' blow on her head which hit in the middle of her head. The complainant raised a hue and cry which attracted Karam Singh, son of brother-in-law of complainant, who had come to see the complainant. On this, the said three persons ran from the spot. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has acquitted the respondents. The accused Sandeep Singh son of Darshan Singh (respondent No.1) was not sent-up for trial. Surinder Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-4) conducted the investigation in the case and he submitted his inquiry report (Ex.PF). Mr. H.S. Pannu, Superintendent of Police did not agree with the inquiry report and it was found that Sandeep Singh was innocent as at the time of the incident he was present at the summer camp in Punjabi University, Patiala. Therefore, Sandeep Singh was not charge-sheeted (challaned) by the Police in the report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Court observed that the root cause from where the quarrel started with the presence of Sandeep Singh was ruled out. Therefore, the alleged act of Sandeep Singh of fixing of the `Kundi' connection on the wires leading to the house of Surjit Kaur also stood ruled out. It is not in dispute that there is no challenge to the fact that Sandeep Singh was found innocent. No private complaint was filed against Sandeep Singh nor any application was was filed before the trial Court for summoning Sandeep Singh as an additional accused. Dr. Sushil Gupta Cr. Rev. No.2388/2009 (O&M) [3] (PW-1), who examined complainant-petitioner Surjit Kaur found lacerated wound 7 x ½ cm. bone deep, situated at the middle and left side of the parietal region and it was 3 cm. lateral to the mid-line of the head. X-ray was advised. The doctor opined that the injury had been given with a blunt weapon. The learned trial Court observed that `Gandasa' is not a blunt weapon. It was observed that the presence of lacerated wound shows that it was given by a blunt weapon and not with a `Gandasa'. The said injury on the person of Surjit Kaur is simple in nature. In cross-examination, Dr. Sushil Gupta (PW-1) admitted that if the injury was fresh, then blood would be present. It may be noticed that Dr. Sushil Gupta (PW-1) gave the duration of injury as 24 hours. The absence of fresh blood would indeed indicate that the injury was not caused within six hours and had been caused earlier. The push that has been given by Darshan Singh (respondent No.1) admittedly did not cause any injury. Therefore, if Sandeep Singh could be falsely roped in, the possibility of Darshan Singh (respondent No.1) being falsely implicated could not be ruled out. Chamkaur Singh, an eye witness to the case is stated to have taken Surjit Kaur to Civil Hospital, Bathinda along with Nirmal Singh, who is the son of the brother-in-law of Surjit Kaur. However, according to Dr. Sushil Gupta (PW-1), Surjit Kaur was brought by Seema, who is the daughter of the complainant. Chamkaur Singh did not state that Seema had accompanied them. The nature of injury admittedly showed that the occurrence had taken place much earlier. The case against the respondents have not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda is based on sound reasons and would not Cr. Rev. No.2388/2009 (O&M) [4] warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The fact that since the revision petition itself is devoid of merit, the question of delay in filing the revision is only academic. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay as also the revision petition are dismissed. March 9, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*