IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2212 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: .8.2.2010 Jaswinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Kunal Chhoker, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Ashok Khubbar Advocate for respondents No.2 to 10. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed under Section 401Cr.P.C. against order dated 28.2.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that a ruqa wassent by the doctor of CHC Radaur to the Police Station regarding admission of injured Jaswinder and Mukesh in the hospital. ASI Dharambir after obtaining opinion of the doctor, recorded statement of Jaswinder on which basis FIR No.49 dated 22.5.2000 for offence under Sections 323/325/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Radaur against two accused i.e. Malkhan and Subhash and the remaining accused were found innocent by the Investigating Officer and they were kept in Column No.2. Accused Malkhan and Subhash were charge-sheeted accordingly. On the basis of Criminal Revision No. 2212 of 2009 [2] statement made by Jaswinder as PW-1, accused-respondents Miha Singh, Harpal Singh, Vikram Singh, Satish Kumar, Narinder Kumar, Amrik Singh and Sohan Lal were summoned as accused on the application made by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was amended and trial was initiated. Statements of prosecution witnesses and that of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The trial Court vide judgment dated 28.2.2009 acquitted the accused-respondents by granting them benefit of doubt as the prosecution failed to prove guilt against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The present revision petition has been filed against judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court on the ground that the statement of the doctor has not been taken into consideration as the doctor had opined that the injured were not fit to make statement. The doctor has also not given any suggestion that the injuries on the person of the injured were self inflicted. He further argued that the trial Court has acquitted the accused only on technicalities without going through the material facts of the case. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has given a categoric finding that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory and there were improvements in their statements while appearing in the Court. The medical evidence produced on record was also in contradiction with the ocular version. As per statement of Jaswinder PW-1, he was given gandasi blow by Satish accused from the sharper side and was beaten by nine Criminal Revision No. 2212 of 2009 [3] accused but his MLR shows that there is no injury caused by sharp edged weapon. Dr.Hukam Chand PW-7 has stated in his cross-examination that injuries were blunt in nature and possibility of all these injuries by fall from an agricultural implement could not be ruled out. The statement of Shamsher Singh PW-9 was only an hearsay evidence and the same could not be taken into consideration. Shamsher Singh PW-9 stated in cross- examination that his son suffered internal injuries whereas as per MLR there were only external injuries and the injured himself stated that he was not medico-legally examined. As per statement of complainant Jaswinder PW-1, Satish accused gave gandasi blow on his left hand. He again stated that Satish gave gandasi blow on his finger and got his finger stitched but there is no record of stitching in the MLR. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out in the judgment of the trial Court. The present revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 8, 2010. raghav