ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No. 2 to 10 had faced the trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 148, 323, 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 86 dated 20.5.2004 registered at Police Station Pinjore. The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 30.5.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of respondents No. 2 to 10 under Section 148, 323, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of their conviction and sentence, respondents No. 2 to 10 preferred an appeal. Petitioner also preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2012 upheld the conviction of respondents No. 2 to 10 qua commission of offence punishable under Section 148, 323/149 IPC and acquitted them under Section 506 IPC and modified the sentence and ordered the release of respondents No. 2 to 10 on probation. Hence, the present petition by the complainant.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Roshan Lal, Banko Devi and Dev Raj had been inflicted injuries by respondents No. 2 to 10. During trial, prosecution successfully established the commission of offence by respondents No. 2 to 10 punishable under Section 148, 323/149 IPC. The prosecution, however, failed to establish the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC by respondents No. 2 to 10 as the X-ray report with regard to fracture alleged to have been suffered by injured Roshan Lalpetitioner was not proved on record. The Radiologist, who had conducted the X-ray examination, was also not examined during trial. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that offence committed by respondents No. 2 to 10 punishable under Section 325 IPC, was not established on record. The Appellate Court, while ordering the release of respondents No. 2 to 10 on probation has observed as under:-

(3.) The reasons given by the Appellate Court, while ordering the release of respondents No. 2 to 10 on probation, are sound reasons.