MITTAR SINGH Vs. SARJEET AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an acquittal by an Honorary Magistrate, 1st Class, Muziffarnager on 8 -8 -1966 from charges framed upon the complaint filed by the Appellant. The learned Magistrate who tried the case came to the conclusion that the injuries on the body of the complainant Appellant and his brother, which were 19 in number, were inflicted over the theft of Barai in the field of the complainant. He also came to the conclusion that the defence version that the 19 injuries, including a fracture of the bone, had been sustained by the complainant and his brother in the manner sought to be proved by producing some defence witnesses, had not been established. The prosecution version was that the incident took place at the field of the complainant at about 10 A.M. on 1 -3 -1966.

(2.) THE prosecution allegation was that the accused had beaten the complainant and his brother because they objected to theft of Barai and had taken away Barai from the field of the complainant after beating them. As the findings of the Magistrate shows that there was credible evidence to support the view that such an occurrence took place, he should have acted under the provisions of Section 347 Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:

(3.) MR . Mandhyan, appearing for the Respondents, contended that the evidence was unreliable and that a long time had elapsed since the occurrence. He also contended that the offence of dacoity was, if at all, a technical one and that the real cause of the dispute was enmity between the two sides. All these are matters which can be raised at the trial. All that is being decided here is that the learned Magistrate could not clutch at jurisdiction on the conclusions reached by him.