SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by their conviction for commission of offence punishable under Sections 325 and 506 (II) read with Section 34 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 325/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 506(II)/34 IPC, the appellants, hereinafter referred to as accused No.1, 2 and 3, have preferred this petition for quashing the same on the grounds inter alia, that the same being against law and facts and based on surmises, hypotheses and conjectures is not sustainable. Also that the judgment and decree Exs. PA and PB, they produced in evidence before learned appellate Court whereby the suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- filed by the complainant on account of loss of left eye allegedly caused to her in the occurrence was dismissed, is erroneously ignored and the conclusion that standard of proof in a civil case as compared to in a criminal case is different and that in a criminal case rather more strict proof is required is absurd and not legally sustainable. The testimony of the so called eye witness PW-2 Jagdish Chand, who as a matter of fact is neighbour of the complainant, should have not been relied upon. The prosecution story that accused No.1 inflicted blow on the left eye and nose of the complainant with iron rod Ex.P-1 whereas accused No.2 and 3 with kicks and fist blows is not proved from the medical evidence on record as only one injury that too on her left eye could be detected during her medical examination. The medical evidence as has come on record from the testimony of Dr. H.R. Kalia, PW-5 and Dr. M.L. Pandey, PW-6 has not been appreciated in its right perspective. The so called evidence that it is accused No.1, who inflicted iron rod blow on left eye of the complainant resulting in complete loss of vision or that the ball of her left eye had to be removed on account of the injury so inflicted to her is not at all put to the said accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., hence, his conviction and sentence is stated to be not legally and factually sustainable.

(2.) At the very outset it is pointed out that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the scope of interference with the findings recorded by the trial court and lower appellate court, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, is very limited as the only thing, which needs adjudication is as to whether the courts below have misread and misconstrued the evidence available on record leading to erroneous findings or there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, which resulted into miscarriage of justice to the aggrieved party. It is well settled that the findings recorded by the courts below after appreciating the evidence available on record in its right perspective normally should not be interfered with in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) It is in the light of the above well settled legal parameters, the fate of this petition has to be decided. Although, there is no need to elaborate the facts of the case, yet to sum up the same in a nut shell to appreciate the point in issue brought to this court in this petition is deemed appropriate.