MOHD RAFIQ Vs. SATPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who had received injuries in the occurrence in question has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 31.3.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the accused, i.e. respondents No. 1 to 8 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 392/394/395 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 23.10.2007, the appellant who was running a tea stall in front of the gate of Sohrab Factory, Malerkotla, was coming towards Malerkotla along with his servant Mohd. Aalam on a motor-cycle.

(3.) While deposing before the trial Court as PW1, the appellant stated that the police had shown him the accused in jail and before that, his statement was not recorded. If that was the position, the appellant had no reason not to name the accused who had caused injuries to him. The appellant also admitted that he knew accused Akhtar Ali and Mohd. Anwar @ Baghi, who are respondents No. 2 and 3, herein, since their childhood. He also admitted that the names of accused were disclosed to him by Mohd. Aalam. He further admitted that the accused had not muffled their faces. In such a situation, there was no earthly reason for the appellant to fail in identifying the accused. PW3 Mohd. Ramzan, brother of Mohd. Rafiq, deposed that the accused present in the Court had caused injuries to his brother Mohd. Rafiq. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand as to how he could have identified the accused to be the ones, who had assaulted the appellant.