In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 993 of 2002 Date of decision: November 27, 2008 Anand Sood ... Petitioner versus Ragh0bir Singh and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal,Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which the respondent was acquitted under Section 338 IPC, however, his conviction was maintained under Section 279 IPC but the substantial sentence was set aside and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Arguments heard. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/338 IPC by the trial court, however, the Appellate Court acquitted the petitioner under Section 338 IPC for the reasons that Dr. K.S. Grewal, who had opined about the nature of the injuries did not appear in the witness box as he had gone abroad. The nature of the injuries could only be proved by the witness while entering into the witness box as he being the expert having examined the injuries could disclose about the same and Hari Ram (PW4) could not testify any more except to identify the signatures of Dr. K.S. Grewal. The judicious discretion exercised by the trial court while awarding the sentence cannot be interfered with. As such, I do not see any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. November 27, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge