KAMLESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 3.2.2012 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2011 arising out of Complaint Case No. 3348 of 2009, Police Station Baghauli, District Hardoi, whereby the appellants Kamlesh and Pahadi were convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 and 504 I.P.C. and also for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. For the offence under Section 323/34 I.P.C., they were sentenced to undertgo imprisonment for a period of six months and for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C., they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. For the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also with fine of Rs. 5,00/ - with default stipulation of two months additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) IN brief the facts necessary for disposal of the instant case are that complainant Asha Ram moved an application on 23.5.2009 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., alleging therein that on 17.5.2009, appellants along with one Jiya Lal, Pahari and two other unknown persons armed with Aslah (firearm, or deadly weapon) came to the temple and started abusing the complainant. The complainant asked them not to abuse them and in order to save himself he ran inside his house, which was situated near the said temple. Thereafter all the accused persons trespassed into his house and caused injuries to him and his wife with kicks and fists and also looted Rs. 1,150/ -. On the alarm raised by the complainant, Ram Pratap and Anil Kumar, who happens to be the son of the complainant and some other persons reached there, who intervened and thereafter the appellants went away from the place of occurrence. According to the version of F.I.R., the complainant could not go to the police station because of the fear of the appellants. He moved applications before the District Magistrate, Hardoi and S.P. Hardoi. When no action was taken on the said applications, then he moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., vide order dated 31.7.2009, was treated as complaint. Thereafter the complainant got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his sons Ram Pratap and Anil Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The appellants along with one Jiya Lal were summoned only for the offence under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (1)x) of the SC/ST Act. The accused, named in the application as Pahadi was not summoned to face trial nor the accused persons were summoned to face trial for the alleged offence under Section 392 and 452 I.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that during trial accused Jiya Lal died hence the case against him was abated.