JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, has acquitted respondent No.3 but upheld the conviction of respondent No.2 and released him on probation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-petitioner (Hardial Singh) filed a complaint under Sections 326, 324, 323, 448, 506, 34 IPC against Navjot Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Parkash Kaur, alleging that he had constructed five shops in the year 1994 in Chhota Haripura, Police Station Islamabad. Navjot Singh, brother of the complainant, asked for help as he was unemployed. In order to help him, the complainant and his wife allowed him to open Doctor’s shop in one of the shops for some time and also gave financial help. It is alleged that it was one of the terms that he will have to vacate the shop as and when the complainant will ask him to vacate the same. It is alleged that Kuldeep Singh and Parkash Kaur also used to visit the shop and house of the complainant frequently and started interfering in his family life. All the accused told Kanso Devi, wife of the complainant to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents and to give to Navjot Singh to expand his business. On her refusal she was abused and insulted. The complainant restrained them from doing so. Ultimately, on 01.06.1997 the complainant asked Navjot Singh accused to vacate the shop. Navjot Singh refused to vacate the shop, as a result of it, the complainant put his own lock on the shop on 04.06.1997 evening. Accused Navjot Singh threatened to kill the complainant on 05.06.1997 when he was going to Patti on motorcycle in connection with his official duty. The accused came and tried to break open the lock of the shop. When the complainant and his wife objected, Parkash Kaur raised lalkara that they be killed. On this, Kuldeep Singh gave the blows with iron rod on the right arm. Parkash Kaur gave blows on the chest of the wife of the complainant. Thereafter, all the accused ran away. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken by the police, rather their signatures were obtained by police on blank papers for writing compromise. Parkash Kaur gave blows on the chest of the wife of the complainant. Thereafter, all the accused ran away. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken by the police, rather their signatures were obtained by police on blank papers for writing compromise. On 04.07.1997, Navjot Singh again abused and give threats. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to the police. On 02.08.1997 at about 8 p.m., allegedly all the accused came on the shop of the complainant and took forcible possession of the shop and adjoining shop by cutting kundas with iron rod. On raising objection, complainant and his wife were threatened to kill by showing pistol. Thereafter, the matter was again reported to the police, but no action was taken. 3. In the preliminary examination, complainant himself examined as PW1, Kanso Devi as PW2, Inderjit Singh Bagga as PW4, Manmohan Singh as PW4 and Dr. Rajinder Pal as PW5 and closed the evidence. The accused were summoned under Sections 323, 324, 326, 34 IPC to file trial. Ultimately, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 323, 326, 451 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. After recording the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused were afforded opportunity to lead defence evidence. The accused in defence examined Hari Dev Singh Bawa, Senior Technical Assistant, Department of Zeology. 5. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, convicted Navjot Singh and Kuldeep Singh and sentenced them vide judgment and order dated 27.09.2007. Parkash Kaur had died during the trial. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Navjot Singh and Kuldeep Singh preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence, convicted Navjot Singh, but released him on probation and acquitted Kuldeep Singh of the charges framed. Hence, this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments of both the Courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was a compromise (Ex.DB) between the parties and first complaint is Ex.DA moved to the police by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the presence of Kuldeep Singh and Parkash Kaur is shown in the compromise (Ex.DB) then Kuldeep Singh admits his presence and occurrence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was a compromise (Ex.DB) between the parties and first complaint is Ex.DA moved to the police by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the presence of Kuldeep Singh and Parkash Kaur is shown in the compromise (Ex.DB) then Kuldeep Singh admits his presence and occurrence. As such, he was also required to be convicted. The findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has categorical recorded a finding that in the complaint dated 12.08.1997 (Ex.DA) moved to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar by the complainant, there were allegations against Navjot Singh and Shashi Lal and they were introduced the names of Kuldeep Singh and his mother Parkash Kaur. In the complaint (Ex.DA) names of Navjot Singh and Shashi Lal were shown and not the names of Kuldeep Singh and Parkash Kaur (since deceased). From this fact, it is clear that the presence of Kuldeep Singh at that point of time is doubtful. The said finding has been recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, after appreciating Ex.DA and the defence evidence led as DW1 where the presence of Kuldeep Singh is shown to be in the University. 9. Further, the material facts on record are to the effect that firstly when PW3 Dr. Rajinder Pal Singh has medically examined Hardial Singh (complainant) at Guru Nanak Dev Hospital on 05.06.1997, only two injuries were found, one injury of lacerated wound 7x1 cm on the lateral side of meddle right fore-arm and second injury is incised wound 4x1 cm present in anterior aspect of lower right forearm. Both the wounds were stitched with silk under local anesthesia and the case was referred to Ortho opinion. While PW4 – Dr. Inderjit Bagga has examined on 06.06.1997 and found five injuries. There is a delay in filing the complaint. There is plausible explanation for that. 10. Both the wounds were stitched with silk under local anesthesia and the case was referred to Ortho opinion. While PW4 – Dr. Inderjit Bagga has examined on 06.06.1997 and found five injuries. There is a delay in filing the complaint. There is plausible explanation for that. 10. Keeping in view these facts that there is a difference in the injuries attributed to the convicts and there is a delay in filing the complaint, coupled with the evidence of compromise (Ex.DB) and complaint (Ex.DA), where the name of Kuldeep Singh does not figure, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly recorded the finding of acquittal against Kuldeep Singh. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice. Compromise (Ex.DB) although bears the signatures of Kuldeep Singh, but it does not mean that he is an accused in that case. The prosecution is required to prove the case against the accused with a cogent and independent evidence. Since, there is no such evidence against Kuldeep Singh, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. Consequently, this criminal revision is hereby dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------