STATE Vs. MEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, we shall dispose of the petition preferred by the state seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 20. 8. 2007 passed by learned Trial Judge whereby he had acquitted all the four accused. We are also deciding the revision petition filed by the complainant, Pawan Kumar @ Satish seeking the same relief.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case as emanating from the record are that pawan Kumar @ Satish (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was a commission agent engaged in the sale and purchase of property. He was also engaged in placement services abroad i. e. was sending persons abroad on commission. On 10. 3. 2004, the complainant had gone to Nanak Pyau to meet a friend. He received telephone call from respondent no. 1 Mewa Singh (hereinafter referred to as R1) to meet him at Bus Terminal Azadpur. The parties met there and spent two hours together over a cup of tea. On invitation of Mewa Singh the complaint joined him at his house at Rohini where respondent no. 2 Rajender (hereinafter referred to as R-2), respondent no. 3 Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred to as R-3) and respondent no. 4 Kripal Manik (hereinafter referred to as R-4) also joined them. The complainant was accosted by the respondents as to why their work had not been done and the 96 persons whom the complainant had undertaken to send abroad had not been sent abroad in spite of the complaint having received the commission. In the course of this discussion hot words were exchanged between the parties. The respondents threatened the complainant that he would be taught a lesson and they caught hold of him and gave him leg and fist blows. They locked the complainant inside the room and bolted it from outside and went out to chalk out their further course of action. They also robbed him of his mobile phone, gold chain, gold ring and Rs. 2500/- in cash which he was carrying on his person. R-2 had been attributed the role of snatching the mobile from the complainant and R-1 had taken his gold ring and gold chain. The complainant was then pushed down from the first floor, pursuant to which he sustained injuries on his hands, jaw and left eye. He somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the respondents. He hired a TSR and reached the house of his brother Rajiv at Laxmi Nagar who removed him to Ram Lal Kundan Lal Hospital. The complainant was given medical aid but since he was unfit for statement till the following day, the D. D. which had recorded the first information about this incident at 11. 55 PM on 10. 3. 2004 was kept pending and after the statement of the complainant was recorded on the following day the rukka was prepared at 2. 30 PM on 11. 3. 2004, pursuant to which the FIR was registered on the same day at 4. 45 pm.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge had initially framed charge against the accused persons under section 394 read with Section 34 IPC. Thereafter the charge was amended to be read as one under Section 397/34 IPC.