Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fauja Singh vs Iqbal Singh And Others on 10 November, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
CRR No.884 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.884 of 2012
Date of decision: 10.11.2014
Fauja Singh
)..Petitioner
versus
Iqbal Singh and others
))Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh
Present: Mr.Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Kuldip Singh, J.
This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the judgment and order of sentence dated 9.10.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib were upheld and the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed.
In nutshell, Fauja Singh complainant had filed a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib under Sections 307, 323, 325, 459, 506 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that the accused had caused injuries to him on the night of 6.4.2003 at around 12.00 midnight. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class summoned the accused under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
After recording pre-charge evidence, the accused were charge sheeted under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC on 6.7.2010 On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate held that the offence under Section 325 IPC is not proved on account of GOPAL KRISHAN 2014.11.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.884 of 2012 2 the fact that x-ray film was not produced on record. Accordingly, the accused were acquitted for offence under Section 325 IPC but convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC and were ordered to be released on probation. The complainant was not satisfied with the said order and filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and have also carefully gone through the file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence is covered under Section 325 IPC. Both the Courts below have taken a view that there was a crack on the right squamous temporal bone of the complainant/ revisionist, however, no x-ray film was produced to support the same. Therefore, relying upon the authority in the case of State of Haryana v. Prem Singh 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 537, it was held that offence under Section 325 IPC is not proved. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. To prove the injury to be a grievous one, proper medical evidence was to be led and in the absence of an x-ray film, the said injury could not be proved.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
10.11.2014 (Kuldip Singh)
gk Judge
GOPAL KRISHAN
2014.11.12 14:15
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh