MANNU LAL Vs. SUBASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2004 rendered by Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, concluding the trial in acquittal. Learned Magistrate tried the criminal case no. 301 of 2003 titled as 'State Vs. Ram Lagan Gupta and three others' pertaining to Police Station Kichcha crime no. 56 of 1991. In the said case, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offence under Section 323, 324, 325, 506 IPC and the learned Magistrate was of the view that no offence is proved against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, so he passed the impugned order of acquittal. It is pertinent to mention that on the previous date this case was ordered to be listed after Holi Vacation but has been made to appear on the list today by Listing Section of the Registry and eventually, learned counsel for both the parties are present and consent the matter to be heard today itself.

(2.) THE incident relates back to 10.02.1991 about 09.00 a.m. when informant Mannu Lal along with his father Makori were indulged in the agriculture work at their sugarcane field, which was allegedly on lease with the informant/complainant, the accused persons intervened them and committed the incident pertaining to offence aforementioned. Charge sheet was submitted after almost two and a half year i.e. on 08.07.1993 and the witness PW1 Mannu Lal (informant) and PW2 Makori (injured) were examined after more than six and a half years of submission of the charge sheet or after more than eight and a half years of the date of the incident. PW3 Dr. P.C. Pant, who medically examined the injured and PW4 Ram Sharan Lal Sharma, Investigating Officer were examined on 14.09.2004 almost after more than 13 years. This is unfortunate aspect of the trial. This Court is not verged to analyse the matter scrupulously but the fact remains that PW2 Makori (injured) when he was examined in the court has disclosed his age 80 years and the Investigating Officer had been retired much earlier from the date when he was produced in the evidence. Learned counsel for the revisionist has read the entire judgment before this Court, which manifests that learned trial court has passed the judgment of acquittal on the basis of some contradictions appeared on the surface of evidence of two fact witnesses. No discussion regarding injuries/medical evidence has been made by the trial court, which has carried certainly a miscarriage of justice in the present matter. The injured has suffered grievous injuries and the learned trial court appears to be quite oblivious while making itself apprised with the injury report coupled with evidence of fact witnesses/injured witness. This revision, in the opinion of this Court, has merits and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2004 is set aside. Let the case be remitted back to the court of concerned Magistrate with a direction that he will re -apprise himself with the evidence and after rendering oral hearing of arguments to the parties concerned, pass fresh judgment. It is made clear that observation, if any, made by this Court will not prejudice the mind of the court below.