In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 1130 of 2001
Date of decision: February 13, 2009
Gurdit Singh
... Petitioner
vs.
Mulakh Raj and others
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Ruminderjit Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N. Jindal, J
This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated
6.1.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara,
acquitting the accused-respondents (herein referred as 'the
respondents') of the charges framed against them.
The brief resume of facts is that on 15.6.1997,
complainant Ishar Singh got his statement recorded to the effect that on
13.6.1997, at about 5.30 p.m. he was putting fodder to the cattle in the
manger. In the meanwhile, Surinder Pal came and prevented him from
putting fodder in the manger and also started quarrelling with him.
Mulakh Raj armed with Datar and his wife Ram Piari also arrived
there. Surinder Pal and Ram Piari caught hold of him and laid him on
the ground, whereas, Mulakh Raj inflicted datar blow on his left arm.
He raised hue and cry which attracted Sudagar Singh son of Mulkha
Singh who rescued him. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR
Crl. Revision No. 1130 of 2001 -2-
***
was registered. Investigation commenced. The respondents were arrested.
On completion of the investigation, challan against the respondents was
presented in the court.
The respondents were charged for the offences under Section
324/34 IPC to which they pleaded as incorrect and opted to contest.
The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in
acquittal.
Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that
Saudagar Singh (PW4) the alleged eye witness of the occurrence did not
support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. Despite cross
examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing could be elicited
which may support the prosecution version. He admitted that at the time of
occurrence, Mulakh Raj and Ram Piari were empty handed and Surinder Pal
was on duty in the G.N.A. Factory. This fact has further been corroborated
by Gurdip Singh Cheema (DW1) Deputy Manager, F.N.A. Factory,
Mehtiana who categorically deposed that Surinder Pal was on duty from
4.00 p.m. To 12.00 p.m. and on 13.6.1997 he was present there during
working hours i.e. from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. His testimony finds
further corroboration from the testimony of Ranjit Singh (DW2) who also
testified that he was in-charge of Surinder Pal Singh on that day and he was
present there and he recorded his attendance. Further more, Dr. Gurdit
Singh (PW1) has deposed that the injuries suffered by the complainant were
superficial in nature and were on the non vital parts of the body. He further
deposed that possibility of it being self suffered cannot be ruled out. Now
we are left with the solitary statement of Ishar Singh (PW2). There is no bar
Crl. Revision No. 1130 of 2001 -3-
***
that conviction cannot be based on the solitary statement of the witness
provided it transpires confidence, but in the present case statement of
Ishwar Singh does not inspire confidence.
The trial court appears to have appreciated the evidence in the
right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or
pointed out resulting into miscarriage of justice. Even otherwise, it is well
settled by now that if two views are possible then the view favouring the
accused should be accepted.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is
dismissed.
February 13, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge