PARMOD KUMAR Vs. HAR PARKASH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No.1 to 5 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar for the offence punishable under Section 148 and Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short), besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 which was attributed to Rajender alias Bablu (respondent No.2) and Baljit Singh (respondent No.5). The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and placed several documents on record. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar after considering the evidence and material on record held that he had no hesitation to hold that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused (respondents No.1 to 5) beyond reasonable doubts.

(2.) Therefore, the accused (respondents No.1 to 5) were acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences under Section 148 and Section 302/149 IPC. Besides, Rajender alias Bablu (respondent No.2) and Baljit Singh (respondent No.5) were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act by extending the benefit of doubt. Aggrieved against the same, Parmod Kumar, who had lodged the FIR and is the brother-in-law of deceased Pardeep, has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents.

(3.) In terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short) only a 'victim' can file an appeal. 'Victim' has been defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC to mean a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir.