Rajesh @ Banti v. State Of Haryana




   
     

 !!"#$#%&

  ' 






 

 























 










 




 


!"
#$ "

 



% 

&!"
' 
#$ 
 "
 




 (((((



 
  
!


"


 
$


 %






$
 
)* +* )+*,
 
!

-
 $ 
. 
/ 

0%% 

 $


0 
 
$ )++12"
34 
/

5 
0 2


$ %


$
 
 

67
-

8 9:
 
)1 )+*;
 

 $


!"
 
$


;+)"
,:)
 
;);
70"
!-


-

 

$%%


-# $ -
 $
 

-
!


$

 

                  

   !   "     "

#     $ % &' ($ )#  *          "

#   

   ! " "      "

  + 

 
    .%         

   ! - #

   "

#  $

 &'($  *

         "

#   

 !" "     "

               

  ! ! "   

"

+ )

 ,

-! "    ) 



$
 "

 


#
 



/$$2




$"


)1 )+*;"

$  !

%




-

'$ 
%
0%%


 
0

"
/002
!
  
 $


"
7 $ 



"



%
 
 $
 "
$
 
00
 

$
%


$%

3 
!

-
<=9

 "

%  
!
%

>
!



!
 
 
 
  

-
 
!$4
- 

-



$$ $"


 







%
% %


 $
- ! 




  
 #

!







%#

 $

 





!


?%
0"
34 
 "

 $

$%% 

-
 #

- !

%

$

!

 
!



- "




%

 %


0

'

"
!


!


 #
!


3!
 
 


-


!


 %


 
 

%
$ 
%
 %
/

5

%@2
!
- 

%
 
/3!
 @2


A
"

- 
/3!
 2


!
- 

!

 
 


$

$

!


%
!4

"

% 

!
.

"
 

!


%"
!
!
 
- 
%

"
!





-
:

;+


 








 
  


  
-



!
-

B "

 $

 %

%
!

 "




/

2
 =  
 
$ -
 $

%
%
 & "
"




% 

!
 
 

!"

$

%
-



%
!
 
4 

%
-


%

 

  "


!
%



A 
- 

 %


-# 
67
!
 
6 

#

!"
"
$ 

 
 
$%

"
0 =6


 $

 
$

*<;/)2
0 
!



0
 



;

 



0 = $

 


 - $
$ 


 
 
 
 $
$ "
 
0
%

$ 
 





$%% 

 $


-
 
$


;+)"
,:)
 
;);
70

/

2

 

$ 
 
$ %
 , &
-


 


 

/$$2"


$

C%



% 


/*;2
!


%
-$ 



?

*"
%





?

)"
%

3 
/0%

2

?

;"

'





?

,"
'
 


?

:"


- $ 

4
3%

?

1"


- $ 
3 
3%

?

<"

0 -
 
3%

?

9"

0 -
  









?

D"


?

*+"
-
7 $ 


3%

?

**"
$ 





?

*)
 
0 -
3% 




?

*;

& "



!
C%


 
$

;*;
0  0


C

$ %

%  =$ $% $


 

%

$

# $

 
$"
!




$ $
 


!

% $


 


$

!
$%

3 

!

!

%


 $"


$


% 

3!
 :

E 
$ "

$ 


# $

$

!


$ 
 
$ $% $"
$ #


$%% 

%


 $
 


$
 %"

 


 

"
# 
% 
 %

 

 
)* +* )+*,
  #

%"


 



 ?
#

 

 




!

 
$ 






 
#

  
$
$ < E 
$ 





$


$%

3  
 
!
!




-

   #

!


3!
 
!


$

#$
%

#

%
!
-
 
-#  


 




%
 
 "

$%


!

%
/#

%2
  =


 "

"

#
 

 %



$ $% $"

-$%
C

$



-


##

$ E 
$ 



 
$


% 





'?,
 

%


#


"
! $

$ 


$ $ #"

$
#
 
-
% $
# $
 
$
 
# $

!=#


 


%
  

 
-

6 %"
?*
-$




"

?)



#

 
$

# 
!
$



 "


#

-
!


% 
 %




 -
-

 E 
$ 


 

 
$


 
-
 
$ 




 

$



$"
$ 

 
$$

# $
 
$

#



  

$%%

 
 $
 


  % 




 *+ E 
$ 



 
%$
 
 $ %


-


 
!
!









 
!


3!
 "

-



$

 


% $

!#"
!





$

-
-
 
%

$ 
-$


#



 







 
! $

#



-
 $ 



 "

B


 $




$

"




! 
 


#
-

# $

$ ** 

%



$

"
! 





?;"

$

-

4
$

)1 )+*;



"
"




% 

!
.



!
 "
!




 

!


!




 %
/#

%2"
 
- 
%

"





$%


 
  
-




B 
- 
$ 
/#

%2
 
! 


/#

%2
!



 $
 %
%


 
"



.

 
$

%
-


!
 $$
&


!

%
 
 
!




$
$
#"
-
4 

%
 "


!
%





% %
 "
FC -

 *+"

 
$

?:
'
 
"

 $
A $"
E8.


"
34 "
!
$ $ 


% %
C%




'
8

 "

#

 



-


%
&

 "

$ -


 #

FC -

 D"


  /
0   1   +    

   



    #!    0     0    -

2 
0 1 +  


0   1   % +    !  04 "

0 !



,
0 1 + % !

, 5 - !"  ! " ! 

      0      0 -  #!   "

'"   - !

  #!" 0 -    #!0 0  

    ,
0   1   +     3

 2   # 6! ,

"

 03 # -

!

 
  !

-



# 7
!



-

-#

%
?:

$

 


$
!


% %



! $
!



$
 


$
In view of the afore-given facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the ocular version is not supported by the medical evidence on record. The allegation levelled by the complainant against the appellant to the effect that he had hit the victim forcefully on the ground twice, rather, stands duly proved by the above-discussed medical evidence.
*) ?,
'
%


"
 $
A $"





% $  
C%


$%


)1 )+*;
 
FC -

#
 :

$$
$


E
 
 



$







%

!

-
:

;+


)1 )+*;

 
 


"

 
-
 
?,

E
FC -

 :"


  /

" !"

,    0      +  '

   !  +   2 #

 
,  8'

#    9'- 0   ! "  :



 -1 + "

,    -  1!0"

ent. Advised X-ray of left wrist and orthopedic opinion."

It is to be noted that the complainant has stated that she had sustained injuries on her wrist as her bangles were broken in the process of trying to save the victim. Eleven pieces of broken bangles were recovered from the spot vide recovery memo Exhibit P-16. Thus, the injuries on the person of the complainant stand proved. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out anything on the record which impinges upon the credibility of the complainant.

13.

Further, the factum of PW1 Gurbachan Singh and PW2 Smt. Sindro having been declared hostile, is entirely irrelevant because these witnesses have only testified about the marital status of the complainant. They have merely deposed that they were not aware of any dispute between the appellant and his wife, i.e the complainant and had not stated before the police that mutual divorce had taken place in the Panchayat between them or that the complainant had solemnized marriage, thereafter, with Kewal Masih and was living with him.
*, 
! ! 

%




 %

$

$

;*;
0  0"



$   $
%


 
 $












3!
 "


%

$$ $

B

& "







!

%
 
4



% 

!
/% 

3!
 2
-










'?

,



'#



 




-
/#

%2


!




 
 

&
-# %


%  
$




# =

 $







'?

,"
 


%



 


%"




#$

=   

 
 $"

%
$

-
 

 F# 

!
 #



 
!


3!
 
 #

%
!
-
 
%"
# 
$
%

%
$

#

"

% 
$
-
C$ 
4 

!

$ "
 
% $ 

- "
%
!%


 
!






 
# $

$

#

% *:

E 
$ 



 
 

% 

'?,



'# 
$

 

 
-

% 

$%

-





 $
!


 
$
#



% $





!#"

# !


 

$ 

% 


%
'?

,



%

"
$%

 



#


$ $
 "

-#





 - 

$ %

 $




%

$$ $

B

*1 & 


C%


%
!


%
7
3%
E 

'?

*"
%
8 

'?

)
 
F7
%


'?

;
- 
'?

,



'#
-
'?

*

'?

;
#
 


 
 

$



% %


  
- ! %
/

2


$
$%



%






 
$$ $
7 -

"



%





=# 


#
 
B

#

!

%
 
 
 -"
$


 *< 

B



 $

!

% 
 %


!





$
 
)* +* )+*,"


-
 
0 "



%
 
 

"

 %

"
 



#





$

 

 $
-

0 
%
"
$$

"
 *9 8
 
 %


-
  *D 

"



"
-

 
 
%

"
 
%  ()
*
))+ (,-*

,+      ./.$ 

0 ' 

;  "

3!&

 <= &>  ;  $ "  0 < = &>