OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the challenge is laid to the impugned judgment convicting the Appellant for offence punishable under Sections 326/323 IPC and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of ' 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of ' 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.

(2.) Briefly the prosecution case is that on 1st June, 1997, one Harpal Singh stated to the police that at about 7.00 P.M. he was going to market to fetch some medicines on his scooter but on the way one Jitender Singh son of Mahender Singh his neighbor blocked his way. On his asking him to clear the way Jitender Singh abused and threatened him. Raj Kumar, the brother of Harpal Singh asked Jitender as to why he was abusing on which he brought a hockey stick and hit on the head of his brother Rajkumar as a result of which he sustained injuries. Raj Kumar went to the police Station and Jitender followed him. Both were medically examined at the AIIMS however, no FIR was registered for this incident. At about 8.30 P.M. Om Prakash, elder brother of Jitender along with two-three associates armed with dandas came to the house of Harpal Singh and started threatening his father and him. Om Prakash hit his father on the leg and the chest besides giving fist and kick blows. His brothers Tulsi Ram and Kartar Singh reached home and tried to intervene, on which Om Prakash asked his associates to catch hold of Tulsi Ram and Kartar Singh and he gave knife blows on the person of both of them as a result of which they fell down. On this the Appellant along with his associates fled away from the spot. Both the injured were taken to the hospital where they were medically examined and their injuries were subsequently opined to be grievous. A Case FIR No. 372/1997 under Sections 307/323/506/34 IPC was registered on the statement of Harpal Singh. After investigation the charge sheet was filed.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge initially framed charge under Section 307 IPC against the Appellant along with the charge under Section 323 IPC and subsequently, an additional charge under Section 326 IPC was also framed. After examining the prosecution witnesses and recording the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and defense evidence, the learned Judge passed the impugned judgment.