JEET RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal revision petition has been filed by Jeet Ram, the complainant -injured, challenging the judgment dated 09.10.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.11.2011 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that initially Balbir, Umesh, Maharaj and Dheeraj along with their co -accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC, by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution was able to produce Inspector Kuldeep Singh (PW1), who had prepared the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.; Ram Kumar Hooda (PW2), a Radiographer, who had radiologically examined Jeet Ram under the supervision of Dr. Jai Narain; Jeet Ram (PW3), the injured; Sonu (PW4), the son of the petitioner, who had received injuries at the hands of the respondents -accused; Kashmiri (PW5), wife of the petitioner, who alleged to have witnessed the occurrence and Ram (PW6), the son of the petitioner, who also claimed himself to be a witness of the occurrence. Vide order dated 25.07.2011, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court. Thereafter the statements of the respondents -accused in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. No evidence in defence was adduced. Vide judgment dated 21.11.2011, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, acquitted Balbir, Umesh, Maharaj and Dheeraj of all the charges framed against them. Accused Desh Raj and Rishi were also acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC but they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC. Vide order dated 22.11.2011, respondents -accused Desh Raj and Rishi were ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months, without supervision, on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ - with one surety each in the like amount. Resultantly, requisite probation and surety bonds were furnished by them and the same were accepted and attested on the same day.

(3.) LEARNED counsel contends that in spite of fact that 15 opportunities were granted to the prosecution for leading its entire evidence, the learned trial Court had gone wrong in closing the evidence of the prosecution by Court order. He further submits that it is the injured, who has suffered on account of the order of closure of the prosecution case by Court order, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below be set aside and matter be remitted to the learned trial Court for affording more time to the prosecution for leading its entire evidence.