Crl.Rev.No.1916 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1916 of 2004 Date of Decision: 6 - 5 – 2009 Baleshwara Nand Swami and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners were tried in case FIR No.59 dated 14.1.1998 registered at Police Station City Karnal, under Sections 452, 323, 34 IPC. The trial Court found them guilty for offence under Section 448 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioners were also sentenced under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal. In appeal, the Appellate Court acquitted the petitioners under Section 448 IPC but sentenced them under Crl.Rev.No.1916 of 2004 [2] Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and had set aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. However, the Appellate Court enhanced the amount of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- each. Prosecution case in brief is that complainant Santosh Devi was follower of Brahma Nand. Brahma Nand was accepted by complainant Santosh Devi as her spiritual master. On 28.11.1997, Santosh Devi was performing Hawan at House No.78, Jyoti Nagar, New Octroi Kaithal Road, Karnal. It is stated that at 11.00 A.M. accused Baleshwara Nand, Pirthi Singh and Joginder Singh accompanied by Bhira resident of Pundri came there and asked Santosh Devi to come out of the house as they intend to have some important conversation. On refusal of the complainant, they forcibly dragged her out of the house, gave beatings and tried to board her in the car. Noise was raised. Many persons were attracted at the spot. Santosh Devi suffered injuries on her head in the scuffle. It is stated that matter was not reported to the police as Prem Singh and others assured complainant that accused will apologise for their conduct. Another attempt was made on 11.1.1998. Therefore, FIR was lodged. Before the trial Court, argument regarding delay in lodging of the FIR, tainted investigation were raised. It was further submitted that witnesses had improved the version and lack necessary credibility, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony. However, a perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court reveal that it was urged that no offence under Section 448 IPC is made out. Witnesses are not reliable and no corroboration is coming forward to the injuries falling within the ambit of Section 323 IPC. I have heard Mr.Rakesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioners. He Crl.Rev.No.1916 of 2004 [3] has stated that conviction is stigmatic, therefore, the present revision petition should be accepted. Counsel stated that once petitioners were acquitted for offence under Section 448 IPC, no reliance could be placed on the testimony PW-2 Santosh. Two Courts below have found that testimony of PW2 Santosh and PW5 Prem Singh worth credence. Regarding acquittal of petitioners under Section 448 IPC, the Appellate Court has taken a very hyper-technical view and stated that since site plan was not proved, therefore, PW2 Santosh and PW5 Prem Singh cannot be believed. The Court held the matter to be trivial and, therefore, awarded the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- to each petitioner. Counsel for the State has stated that much can be said against acquittal of the petitioners under Section 448 IPC. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by rubbing the old wounds. Period of more than 11 years has elapsed. Let the matter rest where they are and, therefore, no interference is warranted especially when no patent illegality or infirmity has been pointed out and no question of law has been raised. Petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 6, 2009. JUDGE RC