[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 November, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRR-1304-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1304-2022
ORDER ORDER PRONOUNCED ON OPERATIVE PART
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED OR FULL
11.11.2025 28.11.2025 FULL PRONOUNCED
Rattan Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Deepak Grover, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the private respondents vide judgment dated
19.07.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal and affirmed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order dated 22.03.2021, the complainant had
come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition in the year
2022.
2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner to ascertain that whether the petition is
worth issuing notice or not and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.
3. Facts of the case are being taken from the grounds of revision petition.
4. On 27.09.2014, petitioner-Rattan Lal made a written complaint to the concerned
Police Station that Priest of Hari Nagar Temple had left a week ago and the accused had
questioned the petitioner that it was his conduct which led the priest to leave the temple.
After that, private respondents abused and gave beatings to the complainant.
5. On 24.09.2014, the matter was resolved between them due to intervention of elder
people of the locality, but however the accused kept vengeance against against him
despite compromise.
1 of 4
6. On 25.09.2014 in the evening when the petitioner/complainant was returning after
purchasing beedi and matchstick from a local store and when he was near his house, he
was suddenly wrongly restrained and attacked by the private respondents/accused with
lathi, iron rod etc. on various parts of his body and he received injuries on his head,
shoulder, knees and eyes. On raising cries, local people arrived, on which the accused
persons ran away. Based on such complaint, an FIR under Section 325, 323, 341, 506 r/w
148, 149 IPC was registered in Police Station Camp, Palwal.
7. After completing the investigation, prosecution was launched and charges were
framed to which, the accused-private respondents did not plead guilty.
8. Vide impugned judgment dated 19.07.2019, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the
private respondents by observing that case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court,
Palwal, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 22.03.2021, by observing that
neither the judgment of trial Court is perverse nor illegal. Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition.
10. Para 6 of the grounds of present petition refer to the weapons used in attack i.e.
Ex.P3 & P4), which were recovered at the instance of the accused and even a CT scan of
the brain of the petitioner was got conducted in which there was a mention of fracture in
frontal bone on left side. Further MLR pointed out towards six injuries suffered by the
petitioner and injury No.1 could be dangerous to life if not treated well.
11. Be that as it may, the most serious offence, for which charges were framed against
the accused under Section 325 IPC, as such no dangerous weapon was attributed to the
accused to connect with the injuries received on fracture of frontal bone, if connected
with the incident.
12. The petitioner's next ground is that the Doctor Raj Kumar-Medical Officer
tendered his affidavit CW2/A in which, he referred all injuries to be blunt and duration of
cause was 1-6 hours and injury No.1 was referred as grievous. In para 12, petitioner
submits that he had filed an application dated 04.06.2019 to re-examine Dr. Raj Kumar
MO, Dr. Kamal Yadav MS of the Safdarganj Hospital, New Delhi, along with complete
record of casualty and also an application for clubbing of criminal complaint titled as
Rattan Lal vs. Daya Kishan etc. which was pending before JMIC, Panchkula. However,
the said criminal complaint was dismissed on 30.01.2019.
13. I have also gone through the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the
JMIC, Palwal. A perusal of the judgment points out that complaint was filed for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 217 IPC.
2 of 4
14. I have gone through the judgment dated 19.07.2019 passed in Criminal Case
No.RBT-52 of 2018. In para 6 of the impugned judgment, reference has been made to
PW1-Mamchand Sub Inspector, who justified that on receiving the written complaint, he
had proceeded towards the spot, where he recorded statements of witnesses under Section
161 CrPC. Even proved the recovery of weapons Ex.P3 & P4. In the cross examination, it
is mentioned in the impugned judgment that there were no specific identification of the
weapons, however such type of weapons are easily available in the market. The
investigator also pointed out that the witnesses had told him that a priest of the temple
had left and the reason for priest leaving was attributed to the complainant and ensued a
minor scuffle between the parties.
15. The petitioner had testified as PW2 and he reiterated the version of the written
complaint. He did not deny a suggestion that one of the accused Daya Kishan was
admitted in hospital due to the injury on his right hand and he also find ignorance that on
25.09.2014, petitioner had entered into house of the accused and had given beatings to
them, to which accused filed a complaint against him. PW3 Ram Kishan testified that
when he heard shirks, he went to the street and found that complainant was beaten
mercilessly and accused were armed with weapons. However in cross-examination, he
also admitted his good relations with the complainant being a neighbour. Another witness
was PW4-Ravi Kant who admitted that when he had reached at the crime scene, the
alleged fight was already over, it means no fight had taken place in his presence.
16. Learned trial Court did not find the prosecution evidence convincing on the
grounds that weapon of offence were not recovered. The trial Court did not rely upon the
testimony of PW3, who was the neighbour and stated that based on the evidence
produced by the prosecution two views had emerged and one view was of false
implication which favoured the accused, as such the trial Court went with the second
view.
17. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court reveals that all the
arguments were discussed in detail and complainant PW2 did not specifically deny the
injuries caused to the accused-Daya Kishan.
18. An analysis of the evidence as referred to in the impugned judgment clearly point
out that one of the accused -Daya Kishan had received injuries which were not explained
by the prosecution. Thus, it has also come in evidence that Daya Kishan had received
injuries in the same occurrence. Consequently, the complainant did not reveal the correct
and true version of what had happened at the spot and how and in what manner, Daya
Kishan had caused injuries. Consequently, the complainant has lost his credibility and
giving rise to two views. One favouring the accused that they may have acted in private
defense. Although no such defense was taken but there is no necessity to take up a
3 of 4
specific defense when the circumstance i.e. fact of injury on Daya Kishan was not denied.
19. Given above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perverseness in the judgment passed
by the trial Court as well as by the Sessions Court. Further, it is not a case where any
question of law is involved to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of this High Court.
Since there is neither any error in facts nor on law, consequently, it is not a case where
notice is issued to the private respondents. Consequently, the present petition is
dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
November 28, 2025
Anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned YES
Whether reportable NO
4 of 4
