STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by the State under Sec. 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 2/8/2006, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2006, Narendra Kumar Mehta and others vs. State, whereby the said court has allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dtd. 15/6/2006, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.194 of 2006, State vs. Narendra Kumar Mehta and others.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the prosecution was set into motion by registration of an FIR on 7/12/2000 at 10:30 a.m. by informant-Shiv Charan Pal (PW1), stating therein that on that day at about 9:00 a.m., he was informed by PW2 father of his son-in-law, that his neighbours-Narendra Mehta and his sons along with their eight to ten companions attacked their house. On receiving this information, while the informant was just leaving the house, his son-in-law in injured condition reached to his house and informed that about 09:00 a.m. on that day, Narendra Mehta along with his three sons (accused herein) along with eight to ten other persons reached to his house and said that since they have instituted a case against them in the police station, they would not allow them to live in this house and committed marpeet with them by iron rod and a chain. After being escaped from there somehow, he was again caught in the veranda by those persons (accused) and committed marpeet. His wife and niece were also beaten with fists and kicks by the accused persons. The incident was witnessed by neighbours i.e. Gazendra Jain, Mukesh Jain, Syed (mason), Baghwan Das, Raju and other neighbours. On the basis of said report of informant, a case was registered against the accused persons along with eight to ten persons for the offence under Ss. 147, 452, 323 and 506 IPC.

(3.) On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against them in the court. The charge was framed against the accused for the selfsame Sec. which the accused denied and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded which the accused again denied, they did not lead any evidence in their defence.