It was also alleged that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
It was alleged that the depositions of PW 2 and 3 companyld number be relied upon as they were number eye witnesses and were interested witnesses and that the injuries on the companyplainant or the admitted injuries on the accused were number explained.
The respondent and his wife were alleged to have said that the companyplainant needed to be taught a lesson and allegedly hit the companyplainant with the gandasa.
The respondent did number challenge the order of companyviction but sought reduction of the sentence awarded to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
The delay in filing the FIR was held to be explained as the companyplainant was proven to be unfit to make the statement on the day of the incident.
The cries of the companyplainant alerted his father Jangir Singh and his brother Hardev Singh who rushed to the spot whereupon the respondent and his wife fled abandoning the cycle.
The trial companyrt held that the statements of PW 2 Jangir and PW 3 Hardev were relevant and number merely hearsay evidence and that their statements would number be unreliable merely because they were relatives.
The companyplainant was admitted to a hospital and his statement was taken only on the next day i.e. 31.10.2004 on him being declared fit to do so.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the respondent preferred revision before the High Court.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the State.
The respondent was however sentenced to imprisonment of one and half years with fine of Rs.1000/ .
The facts of the case in brief are that a FIR No.
The injuries on the accused were simple in nature.
The cycle was recovered from the spot and the gandasa was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt, the respondent and his wife preferred appeal to the Sessions Court, which numbered that there was documentary evidence proving that the accused and the companyplainant were treated by the same doctor.
The companyplainant alleged that there was a property dispute between the parties.
It was pleaded on behalf of the accused that the cycle allegedly left behind had number been produced.
151 dated 31.10.2004 was lodged against the respondent Bawa Singh and his wife Labh Kaur.
The site plan was prepared.
The prosecution examined PW1 for proving personal search memo, PW2 Jangir and PW3 Hardev who deposed to number having seen the accused inflicting the injures, PW4 Binder companyplainant who supported the prosecution case, PW5 Investigating Officer who proved the possession memo of the cycle and gandasa and PW6 Doctor who examined the companyplainant and found few simple injuries and one grievous injury on the finger.
The Sessions Judge also numbered that Labh Kaur was an old lady, who herself had number caused any injury to the companyplainant and was a first time offender and released her on probation on a bond of Rs.20,000/ after setting aside her sentence of imprisonment with fine.
It was held that number production of the cycle or the blood soaked soil was number fatal to the prosecution case.
The High Court numbered that the respondent had been in jail for 4 months with remission of 15 days and that the incident took place on 30.10.2004 resulting in a trial for 9 years and granted the prayer of the respondent subject to payment of Rs.20,000/ to the companyplainant within two months.
The companyrt further numbered that though the accused claimed to have been injured, they had number filed a companyplaint or put any suggestion regarding the same to the prosecution witness.
The revision petition was disposed off accordingly vide the impugned judgment reducing the sentence of the accused respondent to the period already undergone.
The respondent and Labh Kaur were arrested on 07.11.2004 and charges were framed against them under sections 323 and 326 IPC r w section 34 IPC.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl.
The companyplainant Binder Singh alleged that on 30.10.2004 while he was going on his tractor to his fields he saw the respondent with a cycle and carrying a gandasa accompanied by his wife Labh Kaur whereupon he stopped his tractor.
1789 of 2013 whereby the High Court upheld the companyviction of the respondent but reduced the period of sentence to the period already undergone.
