JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

CRM-7499-2025

Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the present criminal revision petition.

In view of averments made in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 24 days in filing the present criminal revision petition is condone.

CRR-487-2025 (O&M)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani in FIR No. 507 dated 12.10.2023, registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') at Police Station City Bhiwani.

2. The petitioner was sentenced as under:-

2. The prosecution case is based on a complaint filed by Pawan, a resident of Jagriti Colony, Bhiwani. On October 10, 2023, around 11:30 PM, Pawan was attending a birthday party for his friend Akshay in Roni's plot. When he encountered Krishan, he asked where Krishan was coming from so late. Krishan responded by abusing Pawan and telling him to go home and inform his parents. Later, around midnight, as Pawan was leaving the party, he saw Krishan at the street comer. Krishan then attacked Pawan with a knife, inflicting wounds on his mouth, hand, and leg before fleeing. Pawan created a commotion, and his friend Roni took him to a government hospital, from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Additionally, Krishan threatened Pawan, stating he would kill him at the next opportunity. Based on the investigation, a formal FIR was registered.

3. On presentation of challan, as per under Section 207 Cr.P.C. copies of challan and other documents were supplied to the accused free of costs.

4. On finding a prima facie case for the commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 of IPC, charges were framed accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and was ultimately convicted.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses, thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by order.

6. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein, all incriminating substances were put to him, to which he pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence was lead by him in his defence and closed it.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available with the trial Court, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide its judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2024, as detailed in para 2 of the judgment above. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 29.10.2024. Hence, the present revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court and the First Appellate Court made their decisions based on assumptions and speculations. However, there are many discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses as well as complainant-PW-1 and PW-2/Roni but both the courts below have overlooked. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the recovery of the alleged weapon from the petitioner is questionable. The knife was