- (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 379 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred to question correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 18.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh affirming the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Original Case No.218/2003. By the judgment and order aforesaid, learned trial court convicted the accused-revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 and 323/34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC, the revision-petitioners are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.300.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC, the revision-petitioners are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.100.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE submission of learned counsel for the revision- petitioners is that as a matter of fact, the statements given by eye-witnesses PW-1 Vimla Devi, PW-2 Paro Devi and PW-4 Ishar Chand are not at all trustworthy as the same suffers from apparent material discrepancies. It is also submitted that the medical evidence too does not support the prosecution case. While opposing the revision petition, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the trial court as well as appellate court has examined the entire evidence and arrived at the definite conclusion which does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. It is asserted that as a matter of fact, PW-1 Vimla Devi and PW-2 Paro Devi were eye-witnesses of the incident and in totality they have supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Ishar Chand, the injured eye-witness as per learned Public Prosecutor in definite terms narrated the entire incident and that is sufficient to affirm the findings given by the trial court.
(3.) I have examined the entire record including the judgment sought to be revised. Learned appellate court examined the entire evidence in detail and by relying upon the statement given by the eye-witnesses and also the medical evidence affirmed the findings given by the trial court. I have also perused the evidence available. PW-1 Vimla Devi in definite terms stated that the accused-revision petitioners came out from the house of Mahaveer and abused Ishar Chand and then gave him a stone blow. Same is the position with regard to statement given by PW-2 Paro Devi. A little discrepancy occurs in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to time of the incident but that is quite immaterial and such discrepancies in no manner warrant interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Beside the two eye-witnesses, PW-4 Ishar Chand, the injured witness in quite detail narrated the entire incident. I do not find any reason to disbelieve him. Suffice to mention here that PW-5 Dr. Jaspal has verified the injury report and as per the medical evidence available, Ishar Chand was having simple injuries on his chest. The availability of injuries is in consonance with the prosecution story.;