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'