MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- . He was also convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for nine months with a fine of Rs. 500/- by both the courts.

(2.) Mr. H.S. Bhullar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, stated that the petitioner has already been released from the jail by way of general remission amnesty granted by the Punjab Government. He, however, challenges the conviction on the ground that the complainant was injured who named five persons including the petitioner for having caused injuries. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner armed with Gandasi came accompanied by Sant Ram, Pirthi Ram, Ashok Kumar, Narinder Kumar, Amarjit Singh and Satish Kumar armed with Dang to the place of occurrence. It has further been alleged that accused Mohinder Kumar caused injuries with Gandasi, as a result of which he fell down. It has further been alleged that the complainant was saved by his father and brother. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot.

(3.) During investigation, it was found that Pirthi Ram, Ashok Kumar, Narinder Kumar, Amarjit Singh and Satish Kumar were innocent. These accused were not even challaned. Even the accused were not examined. No reasons were given as to why his father and brother were not examined. Obviously, it is not possible for the accused to win over the father and brother of the complainant. Thus, perusal of the statements clearly falsifies the finding arrived at by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the statement of the complainant is not trustworthy. It cannot be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the petitioner. Moreover, his statement has not been corroborated by any witness nor by the medical evidence. Therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. In Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, 1997 3 RCR(cri) 667.it has been held by the Apex Court that it is not safe to rely on uncorroborated evidence of the witness, if the testimony of such a witness is to be used as the sole basis of conviction.