CRR-2737-2015 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR-2737-2015 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 27.10.2017

Rajinder Bhatia

..Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present:

Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

CRM-24148 of 2015

1.

For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of

delay of 38 days in filing the revision, which is duly supported by an

affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, delay of 38 days in filing

revision is condoned.

CRR-2737-2015

2.

Through this revision, the petitioner has laid challenge to

judgment of conviction dated 16.3.2015 of the lower appellate court

holding him guilty and convicted under sections 323 and 325 IPC by

modifying the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 16.2.2013

acquitting him under sections 325 and 506 IPC and convicting him only

under section 323 IPC.

3.

Briefly stated, at around 8.45 PM on 6.9.2005 the petitioner

along with 3-4 companions gave fist blows on the mouth and nose of the

complainant, as a result of which, his tooth broke and blood started oozing

out from his nose. On raising a hue and cry by complainant Sameer Bhatia,

Virender Kumar

2017.11.20 17:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-2737-2015 (O&M) 2

one Arvinder Pal Singh and Dr. T.P.Singh came at the spot and rescued him

from the clutches of the petitioner. After investigation, a final report under

section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed against the petitioner.

4.

The trial court, on completion of trial to the satisfaction of both

the sides, while acquitting the petitioner under sections 325 and 506 IPC,

convicted him under section 323 IPC vide impugned judgment and order of

sentence dated 16.2.2013 and released him on probation subject to his

furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the

like amount undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a

period of six months.

5.

The petitioner as well as complainant Sameer Bhatia filed their

respective appeals. In appeal, the complainant sought conviction of the

petitioner under sections 325 and 506 IPC and setting aside the order of

sentence dated 16.2.2013 releasing him on probation. The petitioner,

through his appeal, sought his acquittal even under section 323 IPC. The

first appellate court, after hearing both the sides, modified the impugned

judgment of conviction of the trial court and also convicted the petitioner

under section 325 IPC, but maintained the order of sentence releasing the

petitioner on probation under section 323 IPC, while dismissing the appeal

of the complainant vide judgment dated 16.3.2015.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner,

through his appeal, had sought his acquittal even under section 323 IPC

before the first appellate court, who instead of doing so, also convicted him

under section 325 IPC. Dr. T.P.Singh, who had, allegedly, rescued the

complainant from the petitioner was a Dental Surgeon and thus, was a

Virender Kumar

2017.11.20 17:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-2737-2015 (O&M) 3

material witness, even named in the FIR, was not examined by the

prosecution, which has rendered the entire prosecution case doubtful.

Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been acquitted by both the courts

below. There was no X-ray report qua declaring nature of injury upon the

complainant-injured as grievous, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been

convicted under section 325 IPC because as per Modi Jurisprudence, x-ray

report is must before opining an injury as grievous one. In support of his

contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments in State of Punjab

ver