IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

263 Date of decision: 14.10.2025.

HARCHET SINGH ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5 and 7.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.01.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talwandi Sabo in the complaint case bearing File No.20 of 23.04.2004, R.T. No.11 of 31.05.2005, filed under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341, 452, 455, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 wherein the respondents-accused had been acquitted of the charges framed against them as well as against the subsequent dismissal of Criminal Appeal bearing No.24A of 09.03.2011, R.T. No.166-A of 04.04.2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 04.04.2013, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) contends that the complaint in question had been instituted by the petitioner alleging that on 06.09.2003, he was present in the house of Jasvir Kaur, his relative at village Kele Wander, along with other family members. At about 4:30 P.M., the accused persons entered the house of Jasvir Kaur and started abusing the complainant as they did not relish the complainant having warned them not to encroach upon the land of Sukhmander Singh and his father Piara Singh. When the complainant, along with family members of Jasvir Kaur, did not allow the respondents-accused in indulging into illegal acts, they opened an attack on the petitioner-complainant and caused injuries. After the medico-legal examination, a complaint was submitted to the police and a rapat No.10 dated 07.09.2003 was recorded at Police Station, Talwandi Sabo; however, since no further action was taken by the police, the complaint in question was filed by the petitioner-complainant.

3. The petitioner-complainant led pre-charge evidence and examined the following witnesses:-

Sr.No. Name of witness Witness No.

1 Jasvir Kaur CW.1 2 Harchet Singh CW.2 3 Dr. Charanjit Garg CW.3 SMO

4 PHG Jagdish Singh CW.4 5 Dr. Anu Gupta CW.5

4. After considering the same, the respondents-accused were summoned. The charges were framed to which the accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. After recording the evidence, statements of the respondents- accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and the entire incriminating material was put to them, to which they denied and claimed false implication.

6. On considering the entire evidence, the trial Court concluded that the petitioner-complainant failed to prove his case and that only interested witnesses had been examined. The doctor examined by the complainant specifically opined that the injuries could not be proved as the X-ray had not been exhibited on record and hence discharged the respondents-accused.

7. Aggrieved thereof, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated

04.04.2013. Hence, the present petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Court has not considered the fact that the injury in question was specifically established. CW.5 Dr. Anu Gupta – Radiologist appeared in evidence and proved that there was a fracture on the person of the petitioner, yet, the said clinching evidence had been disregarded by both the Courts. He further contends that the Courts committed an error in disbelieving the version of the petitioner solely on the ground that the witnesses were not independent witnesses notwithstanding that the witnesses were only natural witnesses on the basis of the place of occurrence. He thus contends that the judgments passed by both the Courts deserve to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand submits that the