HARJIT KAUR Vs. UDEY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UDEY Singh, Binder Kaur and Bhola Singh (respondents No.1 to 3) were tried and have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa for the offences under Sections 307, 457, 506, 504 and 34 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' ? for short) in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2011. Aggrieved against the same Harjit Kaur (applicant) has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the said acquittal of respondents No.1 to 3.

(2.) THE applicant Harjit Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa against respondents No.1 to 3 as also one Gurtej Singh (not arrayed as a respondent). It was alleged by the complaint-applicant that the husband of Binder Kaur (respondent No.2) was a truck driver and mostly remained out of the village. In his absence, Udey Singh (respondent No.1), Gurtej Singh (not arrayed as a respondent) and Bhola Singh (respondent No.3) used to come to the house of Binder Kaur (respondent No.2) and indulge in undesirable activities. THE complainant- applicant used to stop them from doing so. She stated that it was not good for the residents of the 'mohalla' (locality) as reputed persons were residing there. On account of the complainant-applicant's stopping them from carrying out undesirable activities, it is alleged that Udey Singh (respondent No.1) tried to rape her. She filed an application dated 30.12.2004, against the said accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken. On 8.1.2005 at about 5.30 p.m., it is alleged that a Maruti car came in front of the house of the complainant-applicant. From the said car four persons i.e. respondents No.1 to 3 and Gurtej Singh came out and forcibly entered the house of the complainant-applicant. Udey Singh (respondent No.1) was carrying a pistol, Gurtej Singh (not arrayed as a respondent) was carrying a knife and Bhola Singh (respondent No.3) was carrying hockey stick. Binder Kaur (respondent No.2) was empty handed. On coming to the house of the complainant-applicant, they started abusing her. Binder Kaur (respondent No.2) exhorted Udey Singh (respondent No.1) to fire on the chest of the complainant-applicant and she be eliminated. On this Udey Singh (respondent No.1) aimed his pistol straight towards the complainant-applicant and with an intention to kill her, fired a shot. THE said shot, passed just near the left eye of the complainant-applicant and pierced through the shawl that she was wearing. When the complainant tried to escape, Gurtej Singh (not arrayed as a respondent) threw the knife that he was carrying towards her, which fell in the courtyard. THE complainant when she tried to run away, Udey Singh (respondent No.1) fired more shots from his pistol and the complainant-applicant bent down and the shots passed over her. THE complainant-applicant started shouting and this attracted Amrik Singh son of Jaggar Singh and Titu Singh who came there and rescued her. THEy witnessed the occurrence. On raising 'lalkaras' (alarm) by Amrik Singh and Titu Singh, the accused (respondents No.1 to 3 and Gurtej Singh) fled away with their respective weapons. While running Binder Kaur (respondent No.2) and Bhola Singh (respondent No.3) stated that the complainant had been saved by these people (Amrik Singh and Titu Singh) on that day but when they get an opportunity, they would kill her and her daughter and throw their bodies in the canal after cutting them into pieces. According to the complainant-applicant had Titu Singh and Amrik Singh not come at the spot, the accused (respondents No.1 to 3 and Gurtej Singh) would have killed her.

(3.) THE statements of the accused in terms of Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' - for short) were recorded. THE accused denied the allegations of the complainant and pleaded innocence. Udey Singh (respondent No.1) stated that the complainant Harjit Kaur had taken a room on rent and owed money to him and when he asked her to vacate his room, she implicated him in the present case due to the said grudge. Binder Kaur (respondent No.2) pleaded that the complainant Harjit Kaur had a suspicion that she forced Udey Singh (respondent No.1) to get the house vacated and due to the said reason she had been falsely implicated in the present case. Bhola Singh (respondent No.3) also took a similar stand. No witness was examined in defence.