Criminal Revision No. 616 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 616 of 2004 Date of decision: 17.9.2009 Pushkar Dutt and another ...petitioners Versus Naresh Kumar and others ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Baljit Mann, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Four persons were prosecuted for offences under Sections 307/34, 325, 324 and 323 IPC. The case was registered on 31.3.1995 through FIR No. 72. One of the accused named Neki Ram died during the course of trial. The appeal qua him, therefore, abated. The prosecution story as seen from the complaint made by Pushkar Dutt is that he alongwith his son Liladhar were returning from the fields. When they reached near the house of Sakina wife of Sudhan started abusing them. The complainant asked for reason when Karambir son of Sudhan reached carrying Pharsa in hand. Attar Singh son of Sudhan having lathi came out of their house. Karambir gave pharsa blow to Pushkar Dutt on his head. Attar Singh gave a lathi blow on the left hand of Liladhar. Neki Ram son of Chandgi Ram carrying Pharsa and Naresh son of Neki Ram carrying lathi also came to the spot. Neki Ram allegedly gave Pharsa blow on the head of Liladhar and Karambir gave pharsa blow on the head of Pushkar. Attar Singh gave lathi blow on his left Criminal Revision No. 616 of 2004 2 shoulder. Naresh gave lathi blows to Liladhar. Neki Ram is attributed another Pharsa blow on head whereupon Phushkar fell down and while he was lying down Naresh allegedly gave lathi blow to him. On raising of alarm, Jag Mohan and Jag Ram reached the spot and rescued victim from the clutches of the accused. They were taken to the hospital and ultimately led to registration of an FIR and trial. Accused persons denied the allegations made against them and plead their false implication. Karambir son of Attar Singh stated that they did not cause any injury to the injured. It is pointed out that no injury was detected when the witnesses were examined by Army authorities. It is thus urged that the forged medical certificate from the doctors were obtained subsequently. Late Neki Ram took a plea that he is Sarpanch of village and on his application BDO had ordered to remove the bricks within 3 days. Pushkar Dutt and Jag Ram had encroached common land of the village, for which he had moved an application before the SDO for removing the encroachment. They thus nursed the grudge against Neki Ram and had so falsely implicated him. The respondent had examined 3 witnesses in their defence, it is pointed out from the evidence that Neki Ram and Naresh were found innocent during the inquiry. Reference is also made to application Ex. DC which was made for discharging Neki Ram and Naresh. This application was duly proved on record. Since Neki Ram is already dead, no further reference is required to be made so far case against him is concerned. Naresh accused has been acquitted by the trial Court. Remaining two accused namely Criminal Revision No. 616 of 2004 3 Attar Singh and Karambir though convicted for offences under Sections 323/324 but were ordered to be released on probation. They, however, had not chosen to file any appeal against the order of their conviction. The complainant has filed this revision for enhancement of sentence and also the acquittal of Naresh as well the acquittal of all the accused persons for offence under Section 307 IPC. The eyewitness account in this case was given by PW-4, PW-6 and PW-9. It was testified that Karambir accused gave pharsa blows on the head of Pushkar Dutt and one pharsa blow was given by Neki Ram accused. Late Neki Ram accused was also alleged to have given pharsa blow on the head of Liladhar. Naresh accused was attributed only lathi blows which hit on the left shoulder and armpit. PW4 Pushkar Dutt, however, during the course of trial stated that Attar Singh and Naresh accused gave lathi blow on the left shoulder and armpit. He thus was found to have given different version in regard to the injuries on his armpit which were earlier attributed to Naresh. Liladhar injured while appearing as PW5 remained silent as regard injury attributed to Naresh. Taking this contradiction/omission into account, the trial Judge came to conclude that Naresh Kumar, accused was not attributed any injury except lathi blows to both the injured. Finding this to be inconsistent with the prosecution case, Naresh Kumar was acquitted. Another reason which weighed with the Court to acquit Naresh Kumar is that the investigation as was conducted by CID Branch had found him and Neki Ram to be innocent. Reference has also been made to the evidence of Ram Chander DW1, Satish Criminal Revision No. 616 of 2004 4 Kumar DW2 and also to the inquiry report. Even the application was moved for discharge of Neki Ram and Naresh Kumar, which of- course was dismissed by the Court on 11.5.1996 not on merits but on the ground that the application for discharge would not be maintainable as the charges had already been framed. It was observed that the accused would be at liberty to show their innocence during the course of trial. Counsel for the petitioners says that there is a clear evidence available on record showing that Naresh had hit the complainant. Such evidence may be available but is not consistent with the case set up by the prosecution initially. By noticing this inconsistency Naresh Kumar was acquitted. There may be possibility of two opinions being formed from the evidence, which was before the trial Court. Even the view convassed by the petitioners may be a possible view but that would not be reason or ground even to interfere in the order of acquittal. If two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial Court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashi Ram versus State of M.P., 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 556. No sufficient reason thus is made out for interfering in the order of acquittal. I have gone through the evidence available on record and have not been able to convince myself that the facts would make out a case for offence under Section 307 IPC. The conviction of the remaining accused for offences under Sections 325, 323, 324 is rightly recorded and there is no challenge against Criminal Revision No. 616 of 2004 5 the same. There is thus no case for interference either in the finding and in the trial is made out. The revision is accordingly dismissed. September 17, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE