GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. SURYAKANT BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Criminal Misc. Petitions arise out of same proceeding pending before the trial court, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

(2.) CrMP No.919 of 2018 has been filed by the accused persons challenging registration of offence under Sec. 195 IPC on the complaint made by the respondent No.1 Dr. Suryakant Bharti. CrMP No.964 of 2018 has also been filed by another accused Bishat Bharti challenging registration of offence under Sec. 195 IPC by the trial court on the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 Dr. Suryakant Bharti whereas CrMP No.1854 of 2018 has been filed by the complainant Dr. Suryakant Bharti for registration of complaint case for the offence under Ss. 463, 467 and 471 IPC also alongwith offence under Sec. 195 IPC.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner No.1 (In CrMP No.919 of 2018) Dr. Gajendra Singh and the respondent No.1 Dr. Suryakant Bharti are Orthopedician by profession and they have made their Clinic at Bypass Road Kawardha after purchasing land. There was dispute exist between them with respect to boundary wall of both the Clinics. On 27/5/2009 at about 2 PM when construction work of Dr. Suryakant Bharti was going on, the complainant Bina Kaushal tried to stop them and claimed the land under construction in her possession. Altercation took place there which converted into abuse and assault and Dr. Suryakant Bharti had assaulted the complainant by crowbar by which she received injuries. She made a report to the police station Kawardha where initially offence under Ss. 294, 323 and 34 IPC was registered. She was being medically examined and after due investigation charge sheet was filed on 31/10/2009 against Dr. Suryakant Bharti and two other accused persons Raman Kumar and Padam Singh for the offence under Ss. 294, 323, 506, 326 and 34 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham. The charge for the offence under Ss. 294, 506-II/34 and 325/34 IPC have been framed by the trial court in Criminal Case No.1444 of 2014. During trial, the witnesses have been examined and after conclusion of trial the accused persons of that criminal case namely Suryakant Bharti, Raman Kumar and Padam Singh were convicted for the offence under Sec. 323/34 IPC instead of Sec. 325/34 IPC and were acquitted from the other offences of Ss. 294, 506-II/34 IPC. Trial court had observed that although Radiologist have given his opinion about fracture of frontal bone, but for want of whereabouts of doctor who conducted the radiological test, he could not be examined before the trial court and the fracture found on the head of the injured has not been proved and thereby held that it would not be appropriate to convict the accused persons for the offence under Sec. 325 IPC, but would be appropriate to convict the accused persons for the offence under Sec. 323 IPC and passed its judgment accordingly vide its judgment dtd. 29/8/2017.