CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1501 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 09, 2011 Didar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner stands convicted for offences under Sections 323, 326 and 526 IPC. Upon conviction, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 326 IPC coupled with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is further to undergo RI for one month. The petitioner is also sentenced to suffer RI for for one year each with fine of `500/- under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is further CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1501 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: sentenced to undergo RI for 15 days. Against this judgement and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Court reduced the sentence to one year under Section 326 IPC and to six months each under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. However, the amount of fine and sentence in case of non-payment thereof remained the same. The petitioner has now filed the present revision to impugn the said sentence. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that for the same very allegations, the complainant has filed a complaint in this case where he had given somewhat different version than what was recorded in the FIR. This aspect was highlighted before the Appellate Court as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgement to urge that the complainant himself admitted that he had filed a private complaint in regard to the same very occurrence. Apart from making allegations against Didar Singh, present petitioner, the complainant had made allegations against Mukhtiar Singh son of Raghbir Singh, Maninder Singh @ Manna son of Randhir Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Mehanga Singh. As per the complainant, these four persons had caused injuries to him. It is on this basis stated that he had given a different version in the complaint as in the FIR he had only named the present petitioner, who had caused him injuries in this case. The private complaint CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1501 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: filed by the complainant was dismissed. On this basis, it is urged that the version given by the complainant was doubtful as he has given different version at different times. I am not impressed with this argument primarily because of the reason that the purpose of filing complaint was that the police did not arraign all the accused, which, according to the complainant, had caused him injuries. The petitioner, however, was named in the complaint as well as in the FIR. The stand against the petitioner was consistent. In this view of the matter, the grievance made by the petitioner of different version may not help so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. Otherwise, the Appellate Court has considered the evidence. PW1 has clearly attributed the injuries to the petitioner in his version in the FIR. This occurrence had taken place in the night time at Haveli and presence of his brother in the Haveli fully stand established. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted for the offences as already noticed. The sentence awarded rather appears light considering the fact that the petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 326 IPC. No case for interference on merits, therefore, is made out. The revision petition is dismissed. December 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE