LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-288

JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

Decided On November 16, 2011
JASWINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed to challenge the acquittal of the respondents under Section 307 IPC with a delay of 297 days. Crl. Misc. No.10342 of 2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning this delay is also filed. The delay is explained on the ground that the certified copy of the judgment was misplaced and was not traceable and could be found only after deep search on 22.1.2010. This has been advanced as the cause of delay in making approach. To me, this will sound a bit hollow. Nevertheless I have considered the case on merits.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos.2 to 4 in this case were prosecuted for offences under Sections 307/323/34 IPC. The story as projected by the prosecution is that the complainant -petitioner along with Jatinder Singh and Ranjit Singh was sitting on the road side near the flour mill of Surjit Singh. Accused -Gurpeet Singh armed with Kirch, Gurbinder Singh armed with Gatra, Rajwinder Singh armed with Kirch and one Crl. Revision No.452 of 2011(O&M) -2 -Happy empty handed, came there. Gurpeet Singh gave a Kirch blow to the petitioner on the right side of his chest. Gurbinder Singh gave a blow with Gatra on the back side of the head of petitioner. Happy had caught Jatinder Singh when Rajwinder Singh had given a Kirch blow on the front side of head of Jatinder Singh. They raised alarm and were saved by Ranjit Singh, S/o Bharpur Singh. The accused ran away from the spot.

(3.) ON the basis of evidence and material placed on record, the Court has examined the respective cases as projected by the parties. The Court has noticed that the prosecution was able to show that the accused -respondents had caused injuries to Jaswinder Singh and Jatinder Singh as was alleged. Their evidence was found consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court had Crl. Revision No.452 of 2011(O&M) -3 -rejected the defence version as put up by the respondents on the ground that Ujjagar Singh or any other member of his family, had not come forward to depose in this regard.