PRITAM CHAND Vs. BHAGWAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that on 11.6.2006, at about 10.00 a.m., the applicant-complainant, Pritam Chand, along with his wife, Anita, and Parmal and Munshi Ram, was going to the bus stand of his village from his house. When they reached in front of the flour-mill of Ram Kishan Jangra, the respondents caused him (applicant) injuries by means of lathis, kirpan and iron rod. Parmal, Munshi Ram and Anita tried to save the applicant from the clutches of the accused, but could not succeed. During the course of the beating, someone telephonically informed the police, which reached at the spot and saved the applicant. The applicant and the witnesses apprised the police of the incident, but no action was initiated against the respondents, rather the police pressurised the complainant-applicant to effect a compromise with the respondents. The complainant-applicant was medico-legally examined vide MLR No. RKN/48/2006, dated 11.6.2006, at CHC, Nissing, and thereafter he was referred to the Government Hospital, Karnal, for radiological examination. The police registered FIR No. 105, dated 11.6.2006, under Sections 384, 452 and 506, IPC, against the complainant-applicant.

(2.) Since the police did not take any action against the respondents, therefore, a complaint was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. After recording the preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned for facing the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 342 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC. The pre-charge evidence was led and the respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In after-charge evidence, the complainant-applicant examined Dr. Rakesh Kumar as PW-1, Arjun Dass as PW-3, Anita as PW-4, Parmal Singh as PW-5, whereas the applicant himself appeared as PW-2. After completion of the complainant's evidence, the statements of the respondents-accused were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them. No evidence in defence was led. After hearing the arguments, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, acquitted the respondents and, hence, the present application for grant of special leave to appeal has been filed. The applicant has also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35550 of 2012, to condone the delay of 88 days in filing the application for grant of special leave to appeal.