Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.8.2009
Chander Bhan ..... Petitioner
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The present revision is against the order of acquittal of respondents
no. 2 to 4 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, on
21.3.2007 in cross-version recorded on the statement of petitioner Chander Bhan
in FIR No. 162 dated 9.6.1998 under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC.
The facts of the prosecution case as have been noticed in the trial
court judgment are that on receipt of information on 9.6.1998 regarding admission
of the petitioner in General Hospital, Narwana, HC Balbir Singh reached there.
After taking the medical opinion regarding fitness of the injured to make the
statement, he recorded the statement of petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner
that on 8.6.1998 at about 9.00 p.m., he was returning from his fields. On the way,
he found that Vakil (respondent no.3) along with 3-4 persons was consuming
liquor. Vakil invited the petitioner to consume liquor but he refused to do so and
proceeded towards his house. When he reached in the street situated in front of the
house of Vakil, Vakil along with his wife Kelo Devi (respondent no. 2) and sister-
in-law Birmati (respondent no.4) waylaid him and said that he will have to face the
consequences of abusing them. Kelo Devi inflicted a lathi blow on his left
shoulder. Accused Birmati inflicted a Jelli blow to him whereas accused Vakil had
also inflicted Jelli blow in his head. On hearing the alarm of the petitioner, his
father Didar Singh reached at the spot. Thereafter, the petitioner party snatched the
lathi from the offenders and inflicted lathi injuries to them in self defence. The
accused party then fled away from the spot along with their weapons while
threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. It was prayed that the matter be
registered and action be taken against the accused persons.
After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the
accused-respondents. They were charged for offence punishable under Section
Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (2)
323, 506, 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined four witnesses,
namely, PW1 Chander Bhan the complainant, PW2 HC Balbir Singh the
Investigating Officer, PW3 Didar Singh, and PW4 Dr. D.R. Kayath. In his
statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-respondents stated that
they have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence, they have not led any
defence.
Considering the evidence brought on record in the form of statements
of witnesses and documents, learned trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents
of the charges framed against them.
Feeling aggrieved, against the order of acquittal, the petitioner filed
the instant revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the
accused-respondents was proved beyond doubt by the complainant who was
examined as PW1. He has clearly stated that the injuries received by him are
caused by the accused-respondents and there was no reason to disbelieve his
testimony which was fully corroborated by PW3 Didar Singh.
It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
PW4 Dr. D.R.Kayath, who medico legally examined the petitioner, had found that
the duration of injuries was within 24 hours and weapon used was blunt in nature.
The statement of this witness had fully corroborated the version of the complainant
but the court below has failed to appreciate the same and wrongly acquitted the
accused-respondents.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the
paper-book, I find no merit in the present revision. As has been said by the
complainant that when he was coming from the fields, the accused Vakil was
consuming liquor with 4-5 persons and he has asked the complainant for company
but he refused and without staying there he proceeded towards his house. The
complainant alleged that when he reached near the house of the accused, Vakil
along with his wife Kelo Devi and sister-in-law Birmati had waylaid him. It was
rightly held by the court below that when accused Vakil was left behind by the
petitioner, there was no occasion for him to reach at the place of occurrence before
him. Moreover, the petitioner had not taken liquor. It is not the case of the
petitioner that there was another passage or that the accused had left the place
earlier than him after taking liquor and the petitioner had stayed on the way. He
has also not explained how the accused had reached earlier than him at the place of
occurrence. According to the complainant’s own version, his father PW3 Didar
Singh had reached at the spot when he raised raula. Thus, he cannot be said to be
Criminal Revision No. 1437 of 2007 (3)
an eye-witness to the occurrence. The court below has rightly discarded the
testimony of these witnesses and acquitted the accused-persons.
As regards the testimony of doctor witness is concerned, I have
perused his statement which is placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-1.
No doubt, he has deposed that he has examined the petitioner and found injuries on
his person and weapon used was blunt in nature. However, in his cross-
examination, he had stated that the injury of the person of Chander Bhan can be
caused by felling on hard, rough surface. So, it cannot be said that the these
injuries have been caused by the accused in the said occurrence.
On the basis of the material placed on record, the learned trial court
found that the prosecution had failed to produce the persons who were consuming
liquor with accused Vakil to prove that the complainant was invited by the accused
to consume liquor. This could be of some relevance to support prosecution version.
In the absence of such material witnesses and discrepancies in the statements of
the witnesses produced, the court below, thus, cannot be said to have gone wrong
in acquitting the accused-respondents.
In view of the above discussions, the revision petition is dismissed.
27.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge