Kulwinder Singh so of Bikkar Singh v. State of Punjab

the basis whereof, the first information report was registered. The Investigating Officer, took into possession MLR, pictorial diagram, showing the seats of injuries, and recorded the statement of the witnesses. In the meantime, the injured, was referred for x-ray examination and vide his report PE, the doctor opined, that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature. The Investigating Officer went to the spot and prepared rough site plan. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

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

4. Charge under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Balwinder Singh, Head Constable (PW1), Dalwinder Singh, Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2010 4 complainant (PW2), Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Medical-Officer (PW3), Dr. Simmi Garg (PW4), Kikkar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW5), Kulwant Kaur, eye-witness (PW6), and, Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW7), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.

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. It was stated by him that, in fact, the complainant, had caused injuries, to Chhinder Kaur wife of Roop Singh, accused, for which, a case was got registered. It was further stated by him that the instant case, was falsely foisted upon him to undo the case against the complainant. He, however, examined Boota Singh (DW1), Duli Chand, Head Constable (DW2), and, Chhinder Kaur (DW3), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgement dated 06.02.2010.

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

10. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2010 5 have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that there was delay of 14 hours, in lodging the FIR. He further submitted that the FIR, was got registered, as a counter-blast, to the complaint, lodged by Shinder Kaur wife of one of the accused namely Roop Singh, who has been acquitted, in which, she had stated, that the complainant party, had given her beatings, as a result whereof, her delivery was affected. He further submitted that, this fact, was corroborated, from the DDR, with regard to this incident, which was recorded, in Police Station Kotkapura and copy whereof, is D1, which was produced. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. He further submitted that the Courts below, did not properly appreciate the evidence, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. He further submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.

12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same were based on complete misreading and misappreciation of evidence or on account of non- consideration of material pieces of evidence. In the instant case, the Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2010 6 Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Balwinder Singh, Head Constable (PW1), Dalwinder Singh, complainant (PW2), Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Medical-Officer (PW3), Dr. Simmi Garg (PW4), Kikkar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW5), Kulwant Kaur, eye-witness (PW6), and, Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW7), the Investigating Officer, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of the consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. The defence evidence was also duly considered, by the Courts below, and was found to be not reliable. The aspect of delay, in lodging the FIR, was also taken into consideration, by the Courts below and they came to the conclusion, that the same stood explained, from the facts and circumstances and evidence, produced on the record. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence of the Court of Sessions, Faridkot, vide which, the appeal, was dismissed, qua the revision- petitioner, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are upheld. Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2010 7

14. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgement.

09.03.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE