Crl. Revision No.773 of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 773 of 2010 Date of decision. 21.04.2010 Ashok Kumar s/o Ram Chander, r/o H.No. 1953, Indira Colony, Manimajra UT Chandigarh. ....... Petitioner Versus State of UT Chandigarh ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for UT Chandigarh. Sham Sunder, J. This revision- petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2010, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which it partly allowed the appeal of the appellant(now revision petitioner), for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 IPC for causing injuries to Kamla Devi and partly dismissed the same for the offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act for causing injuries to Kishan Dass and the judgment dated 3.11.2006, rendered by the trial Court, vide Crl. Revision No.773 of 2010 --2-- which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 452 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. 2. Kamla Devi wife of Sarwan Lal, complainant, made a complaint, Ex.PW2/A, to the Police that two years earlier to the said complaint, a theft took place, in her house. At that time, Ashok Kumar, accused (now revision-petitioner), resident of the same locality, helped her in getting her stolen articles recovered. For his help, the accused started demanding money from her. She paid a sum of Rs.5000/-, as reward, to him. The accused demanded more money , but she showed her inability to pay the same. He also started threatening her. 3. On 14.11.2003, her husband had gone out of station for some work. Her mother namely Badami Devi had come to meet her. At about 6.00 pm, when she was present, in her house, alongwith her two children, and mother, she saw the accused coming towards her house and, on seeing him, she tried to shut the door, but he (accused) forcibly entered her house, by pushing the door, with his leg, and threatened her at the point of pistol, and demanded money. On raising alarm, by her two children and mother, the accused slapped at her face. In the meanwhile, Amar, her brother and Krishan, her brother-in-law, reached there. The accused also gave fist Crl. Revision No.773 of 2010 --3-- blows, on the face of Kishan, but he was caught hold. On the basis of the complaint, aforesaid, FIR, Ex.PB , was registered. Rough site plan was prepared. Medical examination of the complainant and Kishan Dass was got conducted. The pistol and the cartridges were taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PW5/A.The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 4. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Sections 458, 386 and 323 IPC as also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Sarita Mehra, Medical Officer, ( PW-1 ), Kamla Devi, complainant, ( PW-2),Badami Devi, eye witness, ( PW-3 ), mother of the complainant, Amar Dass, ( PW-4 ), Harpinder Singh, Constable, ( PW- 5 ), Jagpal Ram, Head Constable, ( PW-6 ), Devinder Kumar, Sr. Assistant, ( PW-7 ), Dr. P. Siddambary, Jr. Scientific Officer (Ballistics), CFSL, (PW-8) , Jaspal Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-9) and Krishan, (PW-10). Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. Crl. Revision No.773 of 2010 --4-- 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He also examined Biram Lal, DW-1, in his defence. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed. 7. After hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452, and 323 IPC as also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment, as stated hereinbefore. 8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the appellant, which was partly accepted , as stated above. 9. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision- petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. Crl. Revision No.773 of 2010 --5-- 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that Badami Devi, mother of the complainant, an alleged eye witness, when appeared, in the witness box, as PW-3, did not support the case of the prosecution and failed to identify the accused. He further submitted that even Kamla, complainant and Amar Dass, ( PW-4 ), another eye witness, did not identify the accused as the perpetrator of crime. He further submitted that only on the basis of the statement of Krishan, (PW-10), an eye witness-cum-injured, who deposed, in terms of the prosecution version, the Courts below, recorded conviction and awarded sentence. He further submitted that the Courts below did not properly read the evidence and appreciate the same, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. He further submitted that merely, on the basis of the statement of Krishan (PW-10) conviction could not be recorded. He further submitted that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, being illegal, are liable to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that it is the quality, and not the quantity of evidence, which is required to be taken into consideration for coming to the conclusion, as to whether, the Crl. Revision No.773 of 2010 --6-- guilt of the accused, was proved or not. He further submitted that the mere fact that some of the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, was not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the Courts below keeping in view the quality of evidence of Krishan, PW-10, were right in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that while exercising revisional jurisdiction,this Court, cannot revaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that the findings arrived at, by the Courts below, are perverse and illegal, being not based on any admissible evidence, or there was mis-reading or mis- appreciation of evidence, produced by the prosecution. The presence of Kamla Devi, complainant, ( PW-2) at the time of occurrence was proved from the evidence produced on record. The Courts below, on scrutiny of the evidence of Krishan, PW-10, an eye witness-cum-injured duly corroborated by Dr. Sarita Mehra, Medical Officer, ( PW-1 ), were right in coming Crl. Revision No.773 of 2010 --7-- to the conclusion, that the accused tress-passed into the house of the complainant, and caused injury on the person of the Krishan. The Courts below were also right, in coming to the conclusion that the accused at that time, was found in possession of a Country made pistol and three live cartridges, without any permit or licence. The Courts below were also right in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of Krishan, duly supported by the statement of Dr. Sarita (PW-1), and recovery of Country made pistol and the cartridges, was sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, of the trial Court, duly modified by the Appellate Court, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 14. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 15. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. (SHAM SUNDER) April 21, 2010 JUDGE dinesh