Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
Date of decision:26/8/2008
Ratti Ram and others.
...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana.
...Respondent.
...
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.
...
Present: Mr. Arun Yadav Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Goripuri, DAG Haryana.
Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate and Mr. N.K.Sanghi,
Advocate for the complainant.
...
K. C. Puri, J.
Judgment.
Under challenge, in this Criminal Revision, is the
judgment dated 31.1.2001, passed by Shri Kuldip Jain, the then
Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby he dismissed the
appeal preferred against the judgment/order delivered by
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-2-
Mrs.Anita Dahiya, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari,
vide which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/-each and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, under Section
323 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one month, under Section 324 IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 325 IPC.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 5.8.1990, at
about 5.30 AM, in furtherance of their common intention,the
petitioners caused injuries to PW-2 Bir Singh complainant and
PW-3 Ami Lal with the help of Jelley and Lathis. The rescue call
of the injured attracted Chiranji Lal and Amar Singh at the scene of
occurrence. The complaint, in the matter, was made to the local
police by Bir Singh.
After investigation, the accused were challaned. The
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-3-
accused/petitioners were accordingly charge-sheeted to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
PW-1 Dr. R.S.Gupta, PW-2 Bir Singh, complainant and PW-3 Ami
Lal, injured.
Since the prosecution failed to conclude its entire
evidence even after availing of several opportunities including the
last, so the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the Court
order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate IInd
Class, Rewari.
The statements of accused/petitioners under Section 313
Cr.P.C were recorded in which they denied all the prosecution
allegations and stated that they were innocent and falsely
implicated in the case.
The accused examined DW-1 one Chiranji Lal and
closed the defence evidence, after tendering into evidence, certain
documents.
On the conclusion of trial, the accused were convicted
and sentenced, as noticed earlier.
Feeling aggrieved, they filed an appeal which was also
dismissed by Shri Kuldip Jain, the then Additional Sessions Judge,
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-4-
Rewari vide impugned judgment dated 31.1.2001.
Still feeling dis-satisfied, the petitioners have filed the
instant Criminal Revision in this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that no independent witness has been examined. The Investigating
Officer has also not been examined and the revisionists have been
prejudiced on that count.
So far as non-joining of independent witness is
concerned, the evidence of both the injured witnesses is sufficient
to conclude the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
presence of both the injured witnesses cannot be doubted being
stamped witnesses. There is no reason for them to falsely implicate
the accused and to allow the actual culprits to go scot free .The
learned counsel for the revisionists could not show any
circumstance which prejudices the case of the revisionists on
account non-examination of the Investigating Officer. So, the non-
examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the
prosecution.
The learned counsel for the revisionists has further
submitted that Chiranji Lal, the alleged eye witness of the
occurrence has been examined by the revisionists and he has dis-
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-5-
proved the case of the prosecution.
I have carefully considered the said submission.
Both the Courts below have discussed the factum of
examination of Chiranji Lal as a defence witness. Both the Courts
below have reached at the conclusion that his testimony is not
trust-worthy. In the villages, nobody except the relatives or the
complainants come forward to depose as nobody likes to have
enmity with the others. Both the Courts below have rightly not
given much importance to the testimony of DW-1 Chiranji Lal.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted that documents, Exhibits D1 and D2 prove the
possession of the revisionists. In fact, the complainant party has
come in the land of the petitioners and, on that count, the
occurrence had taken place.
Both the Courts below have also dealt with this aspect
of the case elaborately. It is not the case of the revisionists in their
statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that they caused
injuries in their self defence or in self defence of their property.
The said argument is meritless.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted that no recovery of weapons of offence has been
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-6-
effected from the revisionists and that there are discrepancies in the
statements of the eye witnesses and, on that count, the petitioners
are entitled to acquittal.
I have carefully considered the said submission.
Minor discrepancies are bound to occur even in the
statements of truthful witnesses,after the passage of time. The fact
that the recovery of weapons of offence has not been effected is
not fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, both the Courts below have
recorded the guilt of the accused by concurrent findings. No
interference in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below is
made out.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the revisionists has
submitted that the accused have been convicted under Section 325
IPC, without examining the concerned doctor. Dr. L.C.Mittal, who
conducted X-ray examination has not been produced by the
prosecution in the trial Court. The learned trial Court has observed
that X-ray report is perse admissible and the said finding is against
law and facts on the record. The prosecution examined PW-1
Dr.R.S.Gupta, Medical Officer, PHC Dharuhera who has examined
Bir Singh and Ami Lal. This witness has proved Exhibit PW1/1
MLR of Bir Singh and Exhibit PW1/2 MLR of Ami Lal. This
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-7-
witness has not stated that injuries on the person of Ami Lal were
grievous in nature. So, it has been submitted that petitioners have
been wrongly convicted under Section 325 IPC. To support his
contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
authority in case Gurmit Singh Versus Union Territory of
Chandigarh, 1985(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 341. In the said case, the
doctor did not state that there was fracture nor did he give the
extent of cut. So, the conviction of the accused, in that case was
changed from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC after relying
upon authority reported in AIR 1980 S.C.106.
The State counsel assisted by the counsel for the
complainant supported the judgments of both the Courts below and
has submitted that both the Courts below have rightly relied upon
the X-ray report on the file.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions made
by both the sides and have gone through the record of the case.
The arguments advanced by the revisionists carry
weight and have to be accepted. Mere fact that there is X-ray report
on the file is not sufficient to prove that injury on the person of
Ami Lal was grievous. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. R.
S. Gupta, Medical Officer who has proved the medico-legal reports
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-8-
of both the injured but has not uttered a single word that any of the
injuries on the person of Ami Lal was grievous in nature. Mere
production of X-ray report is not sufficient. In authority in case
Gurmit Singh (supra), even the doctor has declared the injury as
grievous but has not stated about the fracture. In that case, it was
held that the injury cannot be said to be grievous. The present case
is on better footing than that case. In the present case, only one
doctor has been examined who has not stated that the injury on the
person of Ami Lal was grievous. The X-ray report cannot be said
to be perse admissible as observed by the trial Court. So, keeping
in view the above circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners
under Section 325 IPC cannot be maintained.
However, there is sufficient evidence on the file to
conclude the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in
respect of Sections 323 and 324 IPC. So, the conviction of the
petitioners recorded under Sections 323 and 324 IPC by the Courts
below is confirmed.
On the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that the occurrence relates to the year
1990 and the petitioners are undergoing the agony of protracted
trial for the last 18 years. The petitioners have already undergone
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-9-
incarceration for a period of one month after their conviction was
up-held by the Appellate Court. The petitioners are on bail since
2001. This Court in authority in case Ram Murti Versus State of
Haryana, 1994(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 33 reduced the sentence to
already undergone (3 weeks) and the accused was released on
probation for offences under Sections 325, 323, 148,149 IPC. In
the said case, the accused faced agony of trial for 7-1/2 years.
I have considered the said submission and have gone
through the record of the case.
The conviction of petitioners under Section 325 IPC
cannot be maintained, as mentioned above. So, the accused stands
under Section 325 IPC. The accused remained in custody for a
period of one month after their conviction was up-held by the
Appellate Court. The accused are facing trial since 1990 i.e for the
last more than 18 years. They are on bail since 28.2.2001. Much
water has flown during the period of 7-1/2 years. There is nothing
on the file that the petitioners are previous convicts or had
indulged in any criminal offence during the long span of 18 years.
So, taking into account the entire circumstances, the sentence of
the accused under Sections 323 and 324 IPC stands reduced to the
one already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine in
Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.
-10-
respect of each petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- , for offence
under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioners shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
On realization of fine, Rs.5,000/- shall paid to each of the injured,
as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
This Criminal Revision stands disposed of in the
manner, indicated above.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial
Court for strict compliance.
September 26th ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge