Full Judgment
Criminal Revision No.897 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.897 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision : March 04, 2013 Mangat Ram ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present : Mr.HK Brinda, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N.Mittal, J.
(Oral) Criminal Misc.
No.18068 of 2012 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 110 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
The application stands allowed accordingly.
Criminal Revision No.897 of 2012 Convict Mangat Ram has filed this revision petition.
Prosecution case is that the petitioner and his co-accused Pakhar Singh and Jaswant Singh caused injuries to complainant Mehar Singh and also threatened him.
Simple and grievous injuries were found on Criminal Revision No.897 of 2012 (O&M) -2- the person of complainant Mehar Singh.
The occurrence was witnessed by his son Hardial Singh who came to the spot on hearing his noise.
On investigation, Pakhar Singh and Jaswant Singh were found innocent and report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) was presented for prosecution of Mangat Ram petitioner only.
However, Parkhar Singh and Jaswant Singh were also summoned as Co.accused on prosecution application under section 319 Cr.P.C.Learned Judicial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 16.3.2011 acquitted Pakhar Singh and Jaswant Singh but convicted petitioner Mangat Ram under sections 323 and 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of ` 1000/- under section 325 IPC.
In appeal preferred by the convict, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc).Fast Track Court, Ropar vide judgment dated 19.7.2011 maintained conviction of the petitioner but ordered his release on probation of good conduct and also imposed ` 10,000/- as costs of litigation payable to the complainant.
Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed this revision petition.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.
It was also argued that Criminal Revision No.897 of 2012 (O&M) -3- petitioner had made complaint against the complainant to Election Commission regarding Panchayat elections and the instant FIR is counter- blast thereto.
It was also argued that there is discrepancy in the prosecution evidence.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted.
If the occurrence was witnessed by complainant's son only besides complainant, the prosecution could not have examined any other independent witness in support of its case.
On the other hand, statements of complainant and his son are corroborated by medical evidence.
Both the courts below have found concurrently that the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable and the guilt of the petitioner under sections 323 and 325 IPC is proved.
The said finding is not shown to be suffering from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error not it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record so as to call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction.
Merely because the petitioner had allegedly made complaint against the complainant to the Election Commission, the prosecution version cannot be doubted.
Enmity is double edged weapon.
Grievance of the petitioner regarding Panchayat election could also be motive for the occurrence.
So-called discrepancy in the prosecution evidence cannot be given undue importance.
Witnesses cannot be expected to make parrot like Criminal Revision No.897 of 2012 (O&M) -4- identical statements particularly when they are examined as witnesses after long period.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L.N.Mittal ) March 04, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'