Chhajju Ram vs State of Haryana

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Chhajju Ram son of Krishan Lal and Ramvir and Dharamvir sons of Chhajju Ram, preferred this Criminal Revision as they were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to Nand Lal and Purnamal. They were, however, released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. They preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Hence the present Revision.

On 18.2.1982, the Supreintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, heard the case regarding opening of new outlet at R.D. No. 13000 and closing the existing outlet at R.D. No. 15000 in the area of Rest House of village Jui. As many as 80 persons including Nand Lal, P.W. 5, Puranmal alongwith the petitioners and Daulat Singh and Shardhanand attended the hearing. The Superintending Engineer passed an order at about 4.05 p.m. that outlet at R.D. No. 13000 be provided and the existing outlet at R.D. No. 15000 be closed. The petitioners were not happy over the decision given by the Superintending Engineer as it was favourable to the complainantparty. Thereafter the gathering was dispersed, the petitioners nursed a grudge that a favourable decision has been managed by Nand Lal and others. Nand Lal denied the allegation upon which Ranvir dealt a lathi blow which hit elbow of Nand Lal. Dharmavir gave a knife blow on the right eyebrow of Nand Lal from the reverse side of the knife. After Nand Lal had fallen down, Chhajju dealt a lathi blow on the left arm and another lathi blow on the neck of Nand Lal. Ranvir also gave lathi blow to Nand Lal on his back. Nihal Singh, Mahabir P.Ws. and Puranmal rescued Nand Lal. Daulat Singh and Shardhanand also appeared on the scene. Shardhanand gave a lathi blow on the left elbow of Nand Lal, whereafter all the accused managed to escape.

The injured were medically examined. On their admission in the hospital, the police was set into motion. After the completion of the investigation, all the petitioners along with their coaccused Daulat Singh and Shardanand (since acquitted) were tried for the offences complained of.

The learned Magistrate on the basis of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. framed charges under Sections 325/323/341/506 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the close of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted Daulat Singh and Shardhanand, but convicted the petitioners under Setion 232 read with Sectin 34 IPC. They were, however, released on probation.

I have heared Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Suraksha Sharma, learned counsel for the State of Haryana.

Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the prosecution evidence and findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not been examined. Nonexamination of the Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution.

This argument cannot be accepted as it is made out from the record that the Investigating Officer as well as Puranmal P.W. had died. Therefore, they could not be examined at the trial. The other police officials who were acquainted with the facts of the case and also with the handwriting and signatures of the parties, have duly proved important facts and the documents prepared by them etc. Therefore, in the case in hand, the nonexamination of the Investigating Officer is certainly not fatal to the prosecution. It is a case where the learned Magistrate had applied his judicial mind and every effort was made by him to find out the truth and this is the very object for which the Courts are created.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the accused at the time of occurrence and other relevant facts, the learned Magistrate took a lenient view by extending the benefit of probation as envisaged under Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. I, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the trial Court, which stood affirmed by the appellate Court.

For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.