ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Jaswant Singh son of Suraj Bhan(for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitionersaccused, by means of FIR No.273 dated 18.07.2011(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani.

(2.) After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report(challan). The petitioners-accused were accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of the indicated offences by the trial court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

(3.) The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined the prosecution witnesses, including PW10 Dr.Pardeep Kumar, who has medico legally examined the injured. During the course of examination, PW10 Dr.Pardeep Kumar maintained that he medico legally examined the complainant on 18.07.2011 at 7.45 PM, whereas the case of the complainant from the very beginning was that he was medico legally examined at 7.45 AM on 18.07.2011.