DILBAGH SINGH Vs. SARDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2005 passed in S.C. No. 137/2004 by the Ld. ASJ whereby the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 were released on probation and respondents no. 4 and 5 were acquitted.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 7.7.2000 at about 6pm the petitioner Dilbagh Singh and his father Amar Singh were resting in their fields in village Nangal Thakran beneath a jaal tree. Thereafter respondent no. 1 Sardare and his two sons, namely Kasim Ali and Hasim Ali reached there and started cutting the jaal tree, to which the petitioners objected. This led to an argument between the parties and Sardare along with his sons started beating Dilbagh Singh and his father Amar Singh with kasi, iron rod and lathi. The petitioner and his father then ran towards the village for safety. It was alleged that Samruddin and Maman who are respondent no. 4 and 5, were coming from the opposite direction and caught hold of the petitioner and his father and Sardare and his sons started beating them again. Consequently Dilbagh Singh and his father received injuries. They were then removed to the hospital for treatment.

(3.) FIR No.287/2000 was registered under Section 341,308,324,325 and 34 IPC at Police Station Bawana on the same day. The Ld. ASJ examined seven witnesses in the case and recorded that Dilbagh Singh received simple injuries on his head while his father Amar Singh had suffered grievous injury on his leg due to the attack by Sadare and his sons. It was also recorded that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the attack on the petitioner and his father was not a planned one and the accused persons did not possess an intention or knowledge to kill, but only to cause grievous hurt. Hence, the three of them were held guilty under Section 324 and 325 IPC. With regard to the culpability of respondent no. 4 and 5, i.e. Maman and Samrudin, it was held that in the statements of the petitioner and his father recorded before the ACP, no allegation was leveled against them. Therefore, their roles as alleged by the prosecution could not be proved beyond doubt and hence, giving the benefit of doubt they were acquitted.