SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), has been filed by the complainant, for leave to file appeal against the judgement of acquittal dated 30.8.2011, whereby respondents no.2 to 4 were acquitted of the charge framed against them.

(2.) The applicant-complainant sought to set the criminal law into motion by registration of FIR No.93 dated 15.7.2006 levelling allegations against respondents no.2 to 4 that they caused grievous injuries to him. However, the investigating agency did not find sufficient evidence, during the investigation. Feeling aggrieved against the action of the prosecuting agency, applicant moved a complaint on 24.10.2006 and the accused were summoned by the Illaqa Magistrate. To avoid repetition and also for the sake of brevity, it is appropriate to refer to the facts noted by the learned trial court in para 1 of the impugned judgement and the same read, as under :-

(3.) In compliance of the summoning order, the accused appeared before the learned Illaqa Magistrate. Relevant documents were supplied to the accused, as per law. The offence alleged having been found to be exclusively triable by the learned court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned court of competent jurisdiction, vide order dated 5.8.2009. Having found a prima facie case, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326,324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, produced as many as five PWs, besides tendering the relevant documents in evidence. After closing the evidence by the prosecution, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused. Refuting all the allegations levelled against them, the accused claimed complete innocence. Opting to lead defence evidence, the accused examined two DWs, besides tendering the relevant documents in defence evidence.