STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN F.I.R. No. 48 was registered on 5th March, 1988 at 11.30 A.M. under Sections 324, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was recorded on the basis of statement of one Shri Baljit Singh, who stated as under :-

(2.) AFTER investigation, a challan was filed in the court of competent jurisdiction and the accused Attar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were set to face trial under sections 323, 324, 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 9.3.1989, learned trial Court had summoned Saranjit under Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, subsequently, it was informed to the learned trial court that Saranjit belongs to armed forces and was being subjected to trial by the Court Martial for the offences, as such, vide order dated 7.12.1989, the prosecution progressed only against two accused Attar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. The prosecution has examined Baljit Singh PW.1, Dr. A.K. Bhutani PW2, Dr. S.K. Gosain PW3, Dharam Pal PW.4, Balle Ram PW5, Ram Kishan PW6, Rajinder Singh PW7 and I.O. Ram Kumar PW8, to prove its case. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the court and they also examined two witnesses. However, DW2 was declared hostile during his examination. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, vide his judgment dated 17.9.1992 acquitted all the accused.

(3.) WE may notice that acquittal of the accused by the learned trial court was mainly based upon contradictory statements of PW.1 and PW.3 and the fact that the injured himself in the complaint had stated that the injuries were caused by Kassi while in his statement before the Court he had stated that injuries were caused by Phali blow. The reasoning given by the learned trial court for acquitting both the accused does not in any way appear to be contrary to the settled canons of law and certainly the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused. Learned counsel appearing for the State places heavy reliance upon the statement of Attar Singh under section 313 Cr.P.C. to contend that Mukhtiar Singh was present at the site and he also stated that injury was caused by Kassi and as such the case of the prosecution is fully supported even by the statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.