TEHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed against the petitioners under Sections 326, 325 and 323 read. with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Satpal Singh complainant appeared as his own witness and one Puran Singh was also produced. Dr, Rakesh Kumar Bansal P.W. 2 medically examined Satpal Singh complainant and found ten injuries on his person. The occurrence took place on 18/3/1982 at about 8 or 9 a.m. and the complaint was filed on 22/4/1982. The learned Magistrate discharged the petitioners on the ground that there was delay in the filing of the complaint, that there is a long-standing enmity between the parties and that Puran Singh P.W. 5 in his cross-examination stated that. in his presence, Tehal Singh petitioner had not inflicted and kirpan injury to the complainant. Several other persons also collected at the spot. Another reason given by the learned Magistrate for the discharge of the petitioners is that no one from the persons who had collected at the spot, was examined by the complainant and that then is a solitary statement of the complainant. The medical evidence also does not make out a prima facie case against any of the accused persons. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of discharge, dated 4 4.1983 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiacpur, the complainant filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur which was allowed by the learned Judge on 26-7.1983 and the learned Magistrate was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law after framing charges against the accused.

(2.) In my view the order dated 26-7-1983 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained as the Magistrate had given cogent reasons for discharging the petitioners. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is not unreasonable and does not suffer from any material illegality. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bansal P.W. 2 opined that the possibility of injury No.9 having been caused by a friendly hand cannot be ruled out. The complainant did not produced even the bloodstained clothes. Admittedly, there is a long-standing enmity between the parties and the possibility of falsely implicating the petitioners cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Magistrate could be taken. It is settled law that if two views are possible on the evidence on the record, the view taken by the trial Court could not be upset even in appeal against acquittal. The revisional powers of the Courts are very much limited. Except in very rare cases where the discharge order or acquittal suffers from any illegality or infirmity or where miscarriage of justice has taken place, no interference is called for.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26-7-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, is set aside. Petition allowed.