SURJIT KAUR Vs. D S KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 19th September, 2005 whereby the respondents were acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. A complaint under Sections 323/325 and 506 of IPC r/w Section 34 thereof was filed by the appellant Late Shri Waryam Singh and Late Ms. Amrit Kaur against the respondents and Late Shri Vidya Sagar. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondents/accused persons wanted to oust the complainants from House No. Z-2, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and had also been threatening them with dire consequences. Complaints were lodged by the complainant with the police, in this regard, a number of times. It was further alleged that on 14th December, 1986, the accused persons attacked complainants No.1 and 3 in their house, as a result of which they sustained injuries. The tooth of complainant No.1 was broken by accused No.2, Manjit Kapoor, who gave merciless beatings to the complainants No. 1 and 3. Report was lodged with the police, but only proceedings u/s 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against both the parties. The complainants sought summoning trial and punishment of the respondents/accused persons.

(2.) After recording of preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned vide order dated 12th April, 1991 for the offences punishable U/Ss. 323/325/506/34 IPC. After recording of pre-charge evidence, charge U/Ss. 323/506/34 IPC was framed against all the four respondents, namely, Sh. D.S. Kapoor, Manjit Kapoor, Devika Kapoor and Sneh Manjit Kapoor; the fifth accused Vidya Sagar having expired during pendency of the complaint. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that whole case of the complainants was based on the testimony of Smt. Surjit Kaur who was examined as PW1 and since she had admitted that she was not present at the time of incident and other complainants, namely, Sh. Waryam Singh and Smt. Amrit Kaur having not been examined after framing of charge, it was difficult to ascertain how the quarrel took place, how Waryam Singh and others sustained injuries and who were the persons responsible for the incident. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also noted that the accused did not get opportunity to examine Waryam Singh and Amrit Kaur, who expired before the charge was framed. Their statements were not taken into consideration while passing order of acquittal.

(3.) A perusal of the record would show that after the respondents were summoned, only two material witnesses, namely, Waryam Singh and Surjit Kaur were examined. The third complainant, Amrit Kaur was not examined at any time after summoning of the respondent.