Crl. Rev. Pet. No.121/05 & 494/05 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: February 09, 2011 + CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 121/2005 SUDESH KUMAR KOHLI ....REVISIONIST/ PETITIONER Through: None. Versus THE STATE ....RESPONDENT Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 494/2005 SUKHDEV KOHLI ....REVISIONIST/ PETITIONER Through: None. Versus THE STATE ....RESPONDENT Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL) 1. Above referred revision petitions are directed against the impugned judgment dated 19th July, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the order of learned Crl. Rev. Pet. No.121/05 & 494/05 Page 2 of 4 Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22nd April 1997 and consequent order on sentence dated 9th May 1997 whereby the revision petitioners were convicted for the offence of simple hurt punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and were directed to be released on probation with the condition that they should keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year and on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to that effect. It was also ordered that in the event of the revision petitioners failing to observe the condition of probation, they shall be called upon to serve the sentence. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and order on sentence, the petitioners filed above referred separate revision petitions, seeking setting aside of their conviction under Section 323 IPC as also the consequent order on sentence. 3. Even on the second call, nobody appears on behalf of either of the revision petitioners. It appears that they have lost interest in the matter. Since there is no-one to pursue the revision petition on behalf of the petitioners, I am left with no alternative but to peruse the record and decide the petitions. On perusal of the revision petitions, it transpires that grievance of the revision petitioners against their conviction is that trial court has committed a grave error in relying upon the sole testimony of the complainant Pawan Kumar Kohli, which is not corroborated by any other evidence. It is also stated in the ground for revision that the trial court has failed to appreciate that as per the MLC Ex.PW-3/A, complainant Pawan Kumar himself went to the hospital and gave history of assault Crl. Rev. Pet. No.121/05 & 494/05 Page 3 of 4 without naming anyone whereas in the complaint statement and his testimony, he claimed that he was assaulted by his cousin brother and when he was cross-examined, he gave an exaggerated version that he met a Constable at the hospital to whom he told that he was assaulted by his relatives. It is alleged that in view of this, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of the complainant. 4. I have perused the trial court record and the impugned judgment and on going through the record, I am of the view that the trial court has rightly relied upon the testimony of injured PW-4 Pawan Kumar Kohli, who was cross examined at length but nothing material so as to discredit his testimony has come on record. Otherwise also, his testimony finds corroboration from his MLC Ex.PW-3/A which was prepared at RML Hospital on 14th June 1989 at 8.25 p.m. As per the MLC, PW-4 had sustained injuries, CIW on left side forehead, CIW on right side of the chest, 1 ½ “ x ½ “ long and CIW on left thigh and those injuries are opined to be caused by a sharp object. In my considered view, said injuries, given the site of injuries, cannot be self-inflicted. As such, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of version of PW-4. 5. In view of the discussion above, I find no infirmity in the order of learned trial Judge convicting the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323/34 IPC. Even the appeal against aforesaid order has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, in view of the above and the fact that there is concurrent finding of fact by the court of learned Magistrate and the court of Additional Sessions Judge, I find no Crl. Rev. Pet. No.121/05 & 494/05 Page 4 of 4 reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence in revisional jurisdiction. 6. Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE FEBRUARY 09, 2011 ks