CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 SHI CK 0399

Durgu Ram and Others vs State of H.P.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 11 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 349 words

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.5.2004, whereby their appeal against the judgment dated 13.9.2001 of trial Magistrate, convicting them of offences under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentencing three of them, namely Durga Ram, Relu Ram and Prem Dass to pay a fine of `500/- each, for each of the two offences and releasing rest of the Petitioners, u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, has been dismissed.

2.

Petitioners were tried for the aforesaid offences on a police report, u/s 173 Cr. P.C. Case of the prosecution is that on 4.7.1998 around 11 a.m., when PW-1 Rattan Lal and his son PW-2 Sarwan Kumar, were laying thatched roof of their house, all the Petitioners went there and assaulted them. As a result of assault, PW-2 Sarwan Kumar, sustained simple injuries in the form of bleeding from the nose and scratches over the body.

3.

Petitioners were tried for offences, under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 506 read with Section 149 IPC. Trial Court, at the end of trial, convicted all the Petitioners and sentenced three of them, with fine, and released the remaining after admonition, u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, as aforesaid. Appeal filed by the revision Petitioners in the Sessions Court stands dismissed.

4.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners and gone through the record.

5.

Only submission, which has been made on behalf of the Petitioners, is that though according to the charge sheet incident had taken place at 11 a.m., PW-1 Rattan Lal, while in the witness box, stated that incident took place around day break. PW-1 Rattan Lal was not confronted with the FIR or his statement, u/s 154 Cr. P.C. Ext. PW1/A, with respect to the aforesaid contradiction. Also, the other witnesses of the incident, including injured PW-2 Sarwan Kumar, clearly testified that incident had taken place at 11 a.m. or say the time recorded in the FIR. Therefore, there seems to be no merit in the submission.Consequently, revision petition is dismissed.