CHAND RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant an injured victim and maker of FIR No. 419/2009 challenges the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated November 11, 2013 whereby respondents No.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 307/34, 452/34 & 506/34 IPC. Respondent No.2 has been convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC and released on probation with a compensation of Rs.40,000/ - to be paid to the appellant.

(2.) THE grievance of the appellant is that for the incident which occurred on December 07, 2008 the Police did not register any FIR and only when he filed an application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FIR No. 419/2009 was registered under Sections 323/452/34 IPC. On a charge -sheet being filed, the learned Trial Court did not rely upon his testimony and that of his wife PW -2 Raj Bala and brother - in -law PW -6 Naveen and acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 5. According to him the intention of the respondents No.2 to 5 was to cause an injury which was likely to cause death and thus the conviction ought to have been under Section 307 IPC and adequate sentence ought to have been awarded.

(3.) AT the outset it may be noted that as regards adequacy of sentence, no appeal by a complainant lies on the said count and proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides the remedy of filing an appeal to a victim against an order acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. Thus, this Court is only looking into the scope of acquittal and whether Satbir has been convicted for a lesser offence.