UPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2003 whereby the respondent Nos 2 and 3 have been discharged of the alleged offences under Sections 308/506/341/34 IPC. The facts in brief as stated in the impugned order itself are as under:

(2.) These points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was the complainant in this case. The first point is that the impugned order has completely brushed aside the eye witness (Sachin) on surmises and conjectures that there were no police or public witnesses when the place of occurrence is frequented by the public as well as by police officers. The second point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that the MLC has also been brushed aside on the ground that the Doctor could not have given a certificate of fitness when initially the history recorded indicated the injured to be conscious, oriented and stable. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is also an eye witness as well as an injured and he has not been discussed at all in the impugned order. The only reference to the complainant in the impugned order is with regard to his alleged enmity with the respondent No. 3's daughter.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted, on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another: (1979) 3 SCC 4, that the respondents have been correctly discharged by the court in proper exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned counsel for the respondents laid stress on the principles set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 thereof which reads as under: 10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principle emerge: