JOGINDER SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Crl. Revision filed by Joginder Singh and others against the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nabha dated 27.1.1998 whereby he acquitted Avtar Singh and others (respondents) in case F.I.R. No. 9 dated 20.2.1992 registered at PS Bhadson under Sections 325/324/148/149 I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 20.2.1992 Joginder Singh along with his brother Ujagar Singh was returning to their house after crushing sugar-cane. At about 8.45 P.M. when they reached near the house of Maghar Singh, they found Avtar Singh son of Maghar Singh armed with soti, Balwinder Singh alias Harvinder Singh son of Maghar Singh armed with soti, Ram Singh son of Nachhattar Singh armed with gun, Lakhbir Singh armed with soti, Gobinder Singh armed with gandasa, Sukhwinder Singh armed with soti, Darbara Singh armed with gun, Shingara Singh armed with soti, Kulwant Singh, Jaswinder Singh armed with sotis, standing on the passage. All of them were under the influence of liquor. Kulwant Singh raised lalkara that Joginder Singh was helping Maghar Singh and he should be taught a lesson. Attack was opened by Avtar Singh etc. accused resulting in injuries to Joginder, Mohinder Singh and Ujagar Singh.

(3.) INJURIES found by him on Avtar Singh and Jaswinder Singh synchornise with the time of the receipt of injuries by Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Ujagar Singh. For the injuries sustained in this occurrence, Mohinder Singh, Ujagar Singh, Joginder Singh, Balwant Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harchand Singh were challaned at challan No. 26-T of 17.9.1992/97. Avtar Singh and Harchand Singh were challaned at challan No. 29-T of 17.9.1992/97. On appreciation of evidence, learned Magistrate has acquitted both sides. Appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to have been perverse or unreasonable having occasioned failure of justice. It was a case of version and cross version. Both sides sustained injuries. It became difficult for the Magistrate to find out which party was aggressor and which party acted to dispel the aggression. If the Magistrate was unable to find as to which party was aggressor, the safer course for him was to give benefit of doubt to both the parties and acquit them. Assuming that this court feels that the Magistrate should have taken different view of the evidence, this court cannot covert acquittal into conviction if the Magistrate has recorded acquittal on the view which on evidence could have been taken. So, this Criminal revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.