Shankar v. State of Haryana

of the complainant party, as a result whereof, case FIR No. 468 dated

21.10.95, under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC, was registered, against them, which was investigated by Ajit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Site plan was prepared. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned.

3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused, were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

4. Charge under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. C.V. Singh (PW1), Dr. Ashu Sethi (PW2), Sulekh Chand, complainant-cum-injured (PW3), Prahlad Rai (PW4), Ajay Verma, Assistant Ahlmad (PW5), and, Ajit Singh (PW6), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.

6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, examined Vinod Gupta (DW1), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and Criminal Revision No. 2793 of 2009 5 sentenced the accused, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved, two appeals, were preferred by the appellants, which were dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide judgement dated 22.10.09.

9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.

10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, no role, was attributed, to the revision-petitioner, in the alleged commission of crime. He further submitted that the revision-petitioner, was not in possession of any wapon of offence. He further submitted that the revision-petitioner, did not cause any injury, on the person of Sulekh Chand, complainant, or Prahlad Rai, injured. He further submitted that, the revision-petitioner, being a government employee, was falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration, the factum that, in this part of the Country, there is general tendency to rope in innocent persons with the guilty, so as to exaggerate the number of accused. He further submitted that, with a view to achieve that goal, the name of the revision-petitioner, as an accused, was also mentioned. He further submitted that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, qua the revision-petitioner, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.

12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, no doubt, no specific role, was attributed, to the Criminal Revision No. 2793 of 2009 6 revision-petitioner, in the commission of crime. He further submitted that there are allegations, that the revision-petitioner and his co- petitioners, caused injuries, on the person of Sulekh Chand with fists. He further submitted that the revision-petitioner, was, however, empty handed. He further submitted that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, recorded by the Courts below, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld.

13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is, no doubt, true that, this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that there was complete misreading or misappreciation of evidence or some material pieces of evidence, were left out of consideration. The grievous injury, was attributed, to Shakti Sharma. No specific injury, was attributed, to the revision-petitioner, by the complainant and Prahlad Rai, injured-cum-eye witness. There is nothing, on the record, that the revision-petitioner, was wielding any weapon of offence, with which, the injury, was allegedly caused, on the person of the complainant or the injured. There is a general tendency, in this part of the Country, that innocent persons, are also roped in alongwith the guilty, so as to exaggerate the number of the accused. In the instant case, as many as six accused, were named, for causing injuries, on the person of the complainant and the injured, without Criminal Revision No. 2793 of 2009 7 attributing any specific role to the revision-petitioner. The participation of the revision-petitioner, who was a government servant, in the alleged commission of crime, was, thus, highly doubtful. The Courts below, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, and, thus, were wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the revision-petitioner. Out of abundant caution, the revision-petitioner, is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, qua him, are liable to be set aside.

14. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are set aside. The revision-petitioner, is acquitted of the charge, framed against him. If the revision-petitioner, is on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. If he is in custody, he shall be set at liberty at once, if not required in any other case.

15. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, forthwith, and send the compliance report, within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the same.

17.02.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE