VED SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, arethat, on 03.05.1997 at about 11 PM, Raj Singh (PW3) came to his house and told his father, complainant Raghbir Singh (PW-2) that appellants Ved Singh and Samey Singh (since deceased) had inflicted injuries on his person, while he was in a process of thrashing the crops. Thereafter, the complainant, his wife Murti Devi (PW4), brother Mohinder Singh (PW5)and Raj Singh (PW3) started going towards their fields. At about 11.15PM, as soon as, they reached near the house of Surat Singh (place of occurrence), in the meantime, appellants Ved Singh and Samey Singh were seen coming on their tractor from the opposite side. Appellant VedSingh was armed with Farsa, whereas Samey Singh was armed with Jelly. They got down from the tractor. Meanwhile, appellants Bala and Phulo Devi armed with lathis also reached there. Ved Singh raised a lalkara that Raghbir be taught a lesson for filing a civil suit. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that, in the meantime, appellant VedSingh also inflicted Farsa blows on the head and left hand of the complainant, whereas appellant Samey Singh (main convict) inflicted Jelly blow, which landed on his temple and finger of left hand.Appellants Bala and Phulo Devi were stated to have inflicted lathi blows on his left knee and back respectively. According to the prosecution that when PWs Murti, Mohinder and Raj Singh tried to rescue him, then the appellants also inflicted injuries to them with their respective weapons.

(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the appellant-convicts have inflicted injuries to complainant Raghbir Singh and his other companions with their respective weapons in the manner, as depicted here-in-above.In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the appellant convicts, vide FIR No.195 dated 4.5.1997, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with Section34 Indian Penal Code by the police of Police Station Sadar Sonepat. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, interms of Section 173 Cr.P.C against the convicts. Consequently, the trial Court chargesheeted the appellants under sections 307, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, by virtue of charge sheet dated 20.2.1998.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, examined PW-1 Dr. S.P. Sharma, who has medicolegally examined the complainant and found five injuries on his person asper MLR (Ex. P- 1). He has also medico legally examined PWs Raj Singhand Murti Devi, by way of MLRs (Ex.P2 & P-3).