Sukhdev Kohli vs The State
2011 Latest Caselaw 794 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Judgment delivered on: February 09, 2011

+       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 121/2005


        SUDESH KUMAR KOHLI                                ....REVISIONIST/
                                                              PETITIONER
                         Through:       None.

                                    Versus

        THE STATE                                             ....RESPONDENT

                Through:                Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.


        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 494/2005


        SUKHDEV KOHLI                                     ....REVISIONIST/
                                                              PETITIONER
                         Through:       None.

                                    Versus

        THE STATE                                             ....RESPONDENT
                Through:                Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1.      Whether Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. Above referred revision petitions are directed against the impugned

judgment dated 19th July, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the order of learned

Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22nd April 1997 and consequent order on

sentence dated 9th May 1997 whereby the revision petitioners were

convicted for the offence of simple hurt punishable under Sections 323/34

IPC and were directed to be released on probation with the condition that

they should keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one

year and on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with

one surety in the like amount to that effect. It was also ordered that in

the event of the revision petitioners failing to observe the condition of

probation, they shall be called upon to serve the sentence.

2. Aggrieved by the conviction and order on sentence, the petitioners

filed above referred separate revision petitions, seeking setting aside of

their conviction under Section 323 IPC as also the consequent order on

sentence.

3. Even on the second call, nobody appears on behalf of either of the

revision petitioners. It appears that they have lost interest in the matter.

Since there is no-one to pursue the revision petition on behalf of the

petitioners, I am left with no alternative but to peruse the record and

decide the petitions. On perusal of the revision petitions, it transpires that

grievance of the revision petitioners against their conviction is that trial

court has committed a grave error in relying upon the sole testimony of

the complainant Pawan Kumar Kohli, which is not corroborated by any

other evidence. It is also stated in the ground for revision that the trial

court has failed to appreciate that as per the MLC Ex.PW-3/A, complainant

Pawan Kumar himself went to the hospital and gave history of assault

without naming anyone whereas in the complaint statement and his

testimony, he claimed that he was assaulted by his cousin brother and

when he was cross-examined, he gave an exaggerated version that he

met a Constable at the hospital to whom he told that he was assaulted by

his relatives. It is alleged that in view of this, it is not safe to rely upon the

sole testimony of the complainant.

4. I have perused the trial court record and the impugned judgment

and on going through the record, I am of the view that the trial court has

rightly relied upon the testimony of injured PW-4 Pawan Kumar Kohli, who

was cross examined at length but nothing material so as to discredit his

testimony has come on record. Otherwise also, his testimony finds

corroboration from his MLC Ex.PW-3/A which was prepared at RML

Hospital on 14th June 1989 at 8.25 p.m. As per the MLC, PW-4 had

sustained injuries, CIW on left side forehead, CIW on right side of the

chest, 1 ½ " x ½ " long and CIW on left thigh and those injuries are opined

to be caused by a sharp object. In my considered view, said injuries,

given the site of injuries, cannot be self-inflicted. As such, there is no

reason to doubt the correctness of version of PW-4.

5. In view of the discussion above, I find no infirmity in the order of

learned trial Judge convicting the petitioners for the offence under

Sections 323/34 IPC. Even the appeal against aforesaid order has been

dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, in view of the

above and the fact that there is concurrent finding of fact by the court of

learned Magistrate and the court of Additional Sessions Judge, I find no

reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order

on sentence in revisional jurisdiction.

6. Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE FEBRUARY 09, 2011 ks