AMARJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision lays challenge to the judgments passed by the Courts below, whereby respondents No. 2 to 8 have been acquitted of the offences charged against them under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC. Amarjit Kaur wife of Hardial Singh, alleged injured/victim got recorded her statement dated 28.05.2005 in regard to an occurrence, which took place on 27.05.2005. As per the allegations, Ajit Singh son of the complainant had gone for purchase of bricks as she was getting a boundary wall constructed around her plot, from the labourers. Jabarjang Singh alias Rinku son of Gurnam Singh, armed with 'kahi' and Maria daughter of Gurnam Singh came there on a motorcycle. Both of them started abusing them. In the meantime, Amarjit Singh son of Sardara Singh, Sardara Singh son of Norata Singh, Gurdev Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh and Charan Kaur wife of Sardara Singh, residents of village Bajheri, came there while raising lalkara. 3/ 4 other persons came in a car bearing No. HP-14-6508. Sardara Singh raised lalkara saying "Amarjit Kaur is alone and catch hold of her'. Amarjit Singh caught hold of her from her arms and Sardara Singh gave fist blows on her eyes and face due to which her spectacles were broken. Jabarjang Singh alias Rinku gave 'kahi' blow on her head. Maria and Gurdev Kaur caught hold of her from her legs and threw her on the ground; Charan Kaur caught hold of her from her hairs and dragged her. She raised alarm 'Bachao Bachao' and upon hearing, her daughter Narinderpal Kaur was attracted to the spot. Many other villagers also gathered at the spot and the accused ran away along with their vehicles and weapons. However, motor cycle bearing No. PB-70-4480 was left at the spot.

(2.) Learned trial Court doubted the story of the prosecution for the reason that there are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant vis-a-vis her earlier version recorded by the police. The Court also noticed that as per medical record in view of statement of Dr. K K Gupta, there was only one injury on the person of the complainant, but as per her version, she was caused injuries by various persons. The Court also refused to rely upon the statement of Narinderpal Kaur as an eye witness to the occurrence because she was not present there and was attracted to the spot when the complainant statedly raised alarm. Narinderpal Kaur, during her cross examination, admitted that by the time, she reached the spot, the assailants had already left the spot. No other witness was available to corroborate the version of the complainant, which was found to be inconsistent with her earlier version in regard to material particulars. The judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court was examined by the first Appellate Court in the light of evidence led by the prosecution. The Appellate Court recorded finding agreeing with the conclusion drawn by the trial Court. It was also brought on record that there was a property dispute between the complainant and the accused, FIR was lodged after a delay of three days. Both the Courts below recorded consistent findings of fact holding that the prosecution has failed to prove culpability of the respondents for committing offence as per narration given by complainant Amarjit Kaur.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the statement of Amarjit Kaur injured/victim cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely for the reason that it does not find corroboration from an independent source. It is further submitted that the Courts have failed to correctly and properly appreciate the testimony of the complainant corroborated by medical evidence in view of the statement of Dr. K K Gupta.