IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

288 Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Pawan ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS Suraj and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-3513-2023 Prayer in the instant application is for condonation of delay of

177 days in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned therein, the instant application is allowed. Delay of 177 days in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition is hereby condoned.

Main case

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them as well as the judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissing the appeal arising from case bearing FIR No.40 dated 30.01.2015 registered under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City, Rohtak.

2. The case in hand was registered on the complaint of the revisionist-petitioner/Pawan Kumar alleging therein that on 27.01.2015, at around 6:15 p.m., when he alighted from an Auto Rickshaw at Old Bus Stand, Rohtak then all of a sudden, Suraj son of Premi, Vinay son of Pappu and two other persons accompanying them, opened an attack on him. The assailants were armed with iron rod and wooden ‘bindas’ (Handles). While Suraj caused injuries on his head with iron rod, Vinay caused injuries on his left foot with the ‘binda’. He tried to rescue himself but Suraj gave a blow with the iron rod on his left hand and the two other persons, who were accompanying them, gave him kick and fist blows. While running away from the place of occurrence, they extended a threat to eliminate him. Information about the injuries caused to the petitioner was conveyed to his family members, whereupon, he was shifted to PGIMS Rohtak for treatment. He was medico legally examined by Dr. Mahem Mahla and was declared unfit to make a statement. His statement was eventually recorded on 30.01.2015 when Doctors declared him fit for his statement whereupon the FIR in question was registered. Investigation was conducted. The respondents were arrested and the weapons used in the commission of offence were seized. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the respondents.

3. To prove the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution proposed to examine 11 witnesses but finally examined only 7 and failed to produce two witnesses namely, Dr. Amanpreet and Dr. Surender, despite having availed the assistance of the Court in securing their presence. The details of the witnesses examined and their testimony is tabulated as under:-

4. The respondents-accused raised a defence that they had been falsely implicated in the present case on account of previous enmity between them. It was also argued that no independent witness has been examined, even though the place of alleged occurrence was a busy market area. The photographs of the place of occurrence were also not taken and no blood stained clothes were seized to prove that the occurrence had actually taken place in the manner as alleged. Besides, the testimony of the witnesses who deposed was materially inconsistent. It is also alleged that the injury, on the basis whereof Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was attracted, was not proved from the X-ray report. The respondents also argued that there was an inordinate delay in registration of the FIR.

5. On consideration of the rival submissions as well as the testimony of the witnesses recorded, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the charges could not be proved by the prosecution and hence acquitted the respondent(s)-accused vide its judgment dated 04.02.2020.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the criminal appeal bearing No.39 of 2020 was filed before the Court of Sessi