PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 14.2.1992 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1990, holding the accused -Appellants guilty of offences under Sections 307/149 IPC, 506 IPC, 324/149 IPC and 148 IPC and sentencing each of them to R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 1500/ -, in default, 2 years R.I. on first count, 3 years R.I. on the second count and 2 years R.I. on third and fourth counts each. That apart, out of fine recovered from the accused - Appellants, victim Naresh was to be paid Rupees 4,000/ - whereas victims Bimla and Subhash were to be given Rupees 1,000/ - each.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the giving rise to the present Criminal Appeal as narrated in para 3 of the impugned judgment on reproduction read as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. for the reasons that the alleged incident took place on 13.1.1990 where as the victims were admitted in the Hospital and the F.I.R. was lodged on 17.1.1990. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Police on its own by recording the statement of Bimla registered the case and prior to that, only a Ruqa was sent by Dr. S.C. Mehta (PWA). Learned Counsel also submitted that though the accused consisted of 6 members but the total number of injuries located on the bodies of Naresh and other injured prosecution witnesses namely Bimla (PW. 6) and Subhash (PW.7), was only five. Learned Counsel also contended that all the injuries except injury No. 1 found on the person of PW Naresh, were simple in nature. That apart, learned Counsel also contended that the complainant side while explaining the reasons for delay has stated that they were not contemplating to lodge any report because they wanted to settle the matter between them as both the sides belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community and a dispute over some Dharamsala was the root cause of the fight. Learned Counsel referred to testimonies of Dr. S.C. Mehta (PW4) and private Surgeon Dr. M.R. Sapra (PW 8) to contend that injury No. 1 though located on a vital part of the body, was not of such a nature and also does not seem to have been caused in such circumstances which could be covered by the ingredients of Section 307 IPC.