Parminder Singh vs Surjit Singh

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner after loosing his case before JMIC, Hoshiarpur as well as Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant filed a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 94 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148, 149 IPC was registered on 14.4.2008 at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur.

The accused respondents faced trial and ultimately they were acquitted by the trial Court on 2.5.2013. Thereafter, the said judgment of the trial Court was challenged by way of filing appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 7.3.2014 and judgment of the trial Court was upheld.

Both the judgments of trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court have been challenged in the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below while passing the judgment of acquittal of the accused have misread and misconstrued the evidence on record. The injuries on the person of the complainant petitioner were proved but still accused have been acquitted. The statement of the complainant-petitioner PW7 as well as Investigating Officer PW2 ASI Gurmail Singh finds corroboration with each other and the same has been corroborated by the medical evidence.

Learned counsel further submits that the finding recorded by both the Courts below are contrary to oral statements as well as medical evidence on record and as such both the judgments are liable to be set aside.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as other documents on the file.

Both the Courts below have mentioned in the judgments that the complainant petitioner has stated that the accused persons raised Lalkara to kill him but while appearing in the Court as PW7 he has stated that accused Surjit attacked on his head and Sita Singh and Surender Singh strangled him. A supplementary statement was recorded on 13.1.2009 after a delay of nine months from the initial statement recorded firstly on 14.4.2008. The persons whose names were mentioned in the supplementary statement were found innocent during the investigation. The complainant petitioner was the star witness of the prosecution and no other independent witness was present. As per statement of the complainant, 10/11 unknown persons came in a tractor trolley and caused injuries to him. The supplementary statement made after a period of nine months was totally an improved version. Not only they were named but specific roles were also attributed to those persons. It has also come in the inquiry that earlier a case was pending between the parties and as per statement of ASI Gurmail Singh, complainant-petitioner was found guilty of causing injuries to respondent Dharam Kaur which in itself shows that the petitioner as well as accused party were not having cordial relations. The accused respondents were not known to the complainant but still they were named in the supplementary statement which was made after a delay of nine months.

On perusal of judgments of both the Courts below, it is clear that as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, the accused were acquitted of the charges by the trial Court and judgment of the trial Court was upheld by lower Appellate Court. There is nothing on record that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are contrary to evidence, in any manner or Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record. I do not find any merit to interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.