JAGMER SINGH Vs. LAHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against acquittal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Jagmer Singh of village Sultanpur, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad allegedly received injuries at the hands of Laheri, Deopal and Smt. Krishna on 2.2.1976 while he was working in his field. A complaint was lodged by Jagmer at P.S. Muradnagar on the same day i.e. 2.2.1976 just after the incident i.e. at 4.45 P.M. and a case u/s. 324 I.P.C. was registered. As per the medical report Ext. Ka 2, the injured Jagmer was medically examined by Dr. Ram Kishan of P.H.C. Murad Nagar on the same day and following injuries were found on his person: 1. Incised wound on the post auricela reo gion i" x 1/8 x 1.8 deep right side (upper part of neck and lower part of head right side). It is 7/8 behind from the right ear and 3 below the ociput.Margins of the wound are clean cut and sharp cut hairs are seen in the wound.

(2.) Red contusion 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 on the right elbow joint front and inner aspect. Doctor opined that both injuries are simple. Injury No.1 is caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No.2 is caused by blunt weapon and dqration is about 1/2 day. 2. For about three months no action was taken by the police on his report then the injured Jagmer filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 7.5.1976 mentioning all the facts which were mentioned by him in the report before the police. The Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses produced by the complainant coupled with the medical report ordered for a summoning all the three accused persons Laheri, Deopal and Smt. Krishna U/s. 323/324 I.P.C. and they were tried for the said offences. During trial Jagmer complainant examined himself as P.W. 1, Sri Satendra as P.W. 2 Khancheru as P.W. 3, Dharamveer as P.W. 4, Dr. Ram Kishan as P.W. 6 and Sri Om Dutt the police official who recorded F.I.R. (P.W. 5). In their statements Vis. 313 Cr. P.C. accused denied the allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. In defence they examined one witness Rohtasas D.W. 1 who stated that on the date of the incident no marpeet was done

(3.) Learned Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad Sri Sultan Singh acquitted all three accused persons on the grounds that at the time of the incident, the witnesses could not be there and that the age of Deopal accused was only 10 to 12 years and that in the report before the police it was not mentioned that he was having the lathi and caused injuries by the lathi. Disbelieving the evidence of the complainant, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the three accused persons Laheri, Deopal and Smt. Krishna. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed this appeal against the acquittal order dt. 17.2.1979. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention towards the evidence of the witnesses examined by the complainant and argued that Jagmer Singh is injured person and there is no reason todisbelieve him. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact. According to him, the incident is of dated 2.2.1976 and the time is of 2 P.M. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged on the same day at 4.45 P.M. The distance of the police station was 4 Km. The injured was examined by Dr. Ram Kishan at the P.H.C. Muradnagar at 7.45 P.M. on the same day. As per the medical report Ext. Ka 2 there was an incised wound on the post auricela region 1 x 1/8 x 1.8 deep Rt. side (upper part of neck and lower part of head Rt. side) it was 7.8 behind from the right ear, and 3 below the ociput. Margins of the wound were clean cut and sharp cut. As per the Doctor, this injury could have been caused by an exe (Kulhari). There was another injury i.e. red contusion 1 W x IIhT on the right elbow joint front and inner aspect and that injury was caused by blunt weapon. According to the learned counsel, the learned Svecial Judicial Magistrate did not take into account this medical report and statement of Doctor coupled with the statement of the injured and he acquitted all these three accused persons without any reason and justification misusing his judicial discretion. According to the learned counsel, it is a fit case wherein all the three accused persons should have been convicted U/s. 323/324 I.P.C.