IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1144 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : August 05, 2009 Om Parkash ....Petitioner versus Vinod Kumar and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for Ms. Harsh Rekha Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 22479 of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the appeal, delay of 146 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Criminal Revision No. 1144 of 2009 Om Parkash has filed this revision petition challenging judgment dated 8.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby respondents Vinod Kumar, Dara Singh and Bhagat Singh stand acquitted in FIR No. 79 dated 12.5.2007, under sections 302, 201 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula. Rahul Gandhi alias Ginni lodged FIR alleging that on 11.5.2007 at about 3.30 PM, he was going from Dera Bassi to his house in Criminal Revision No. 1144 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Sector-25, Panchkula via Ramgarh. At abaout 4.00 PM, he reached bus stand Madanpur where he saw three boys standing near a Bullet Motorcycle. When he started looking towards them, one of them objected to it. The said boys caught him and gave him slaps and fist blows. Informant's friend Rajiv Sharma alias Raju and petitioner's son Rajiv since deceased happened to come there. The aforesaid three assailants caught hold of them and started beating them. One of the assailants inflicted blows on stomach and arm of Rajiv with a stick like weapon and threw him in the bushes. On hearing noise, some people came and thereupon the assailants fled away. After some time Rajiv regained consciousness and thereupon the informant and Raju left the spot. Next day, Raju telephonically informed the informant Rahul Gandhi that Rajiv had since died due to injuries. During trial, informant Rahul Gandhi appeared as PW7 and stated about the occurrence but deposed that he could not identify the assailants. He was declared hostile but nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited in his cross-examination. Similarly other alleged eye witness Rajiv Sharma alias Raju while appearing as PW8 stated about the incident but deposed that he could not identify the assailants because they had not inflicted injuries to Rajiv deceased in his presence. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecutor but nothing favourable to the prosecution could be extracted. Other evidence was also led by the prosecution. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondents vide impugned judgment dated 8.7.2008. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Criminal Revision No. 1144 of 2009 (O&M) -3- It is a case of no evidence against the respondents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had no option but to acquit the accused when both alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence refused to identify the respondents being the assailants who had caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Rajiv Sharma alias Raju had identified the respondents as the assailants during investigation. However, the said statement before the police made by Rajiv Sharma alias Raju is no evidence and could be used only for contradicting or corroborating the testimony made by the witness during trial in the court. The statement made by the witness in the court is substantive evidence and in the court, the witness did not state that the respondents were the assailants. Same is the position of Rahul Gandhi PW7. Being case of no evidence, it is manifest that the instant revision petition is completely devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 05, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'