RAGHBIR Vs. SOM NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala whereby complaint filed by applicant under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code has been dismissed and respondents have been acquitted of the charge framed against them.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the applicant -complainant under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code alleging that applicant -complainant and his family members during the recent Panchayat elections supported the candidature of Sh. Ram Parkash son of Sh. Kishan Chand for the post of Sarpanch of Village Poanti, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala against Surjeet Singh, who had contested the election against Ram Parkash. Surjeet Singh was the candidate of aforesaid persons. During the elections, all the above said persons, asked the complainant to vote for their candidate, but the applicant -complainant politely refused to accept their demand, due to which the respondents -accused persons became furious. On 13.08.2005, the applicant -complainant was present in his house, when at about 9.30 P.M., all these persons except respondent/accused No. 7 ASI Narinder Singh, under the influence of liquor came at the house of the applicant -complainant and started giving fists and slaps to the applicant -complainant. The applicant -complainant shouted for help, on hearing the same, son of the applicant -complainant, namely, Ashok Kumar, his wife Baby, Nirmal Kumar and his wife Pakasho reached there and rescued the applicant -complainant. All the respondents/accused persons were hurling filthy abuses to the applicant -complainant. Som Nath gave a kick blow to Baby in her stomach, who was having 8 months pregnancy at that time. The daughter -in -law of the applicant -complainant, namely, Baby immediately fell down and became unconscious. In the meantime, on hearing the noise, various persons from the neighbourhood including Phool Chand son of Sh. Anant Ram, Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Darshan reached there. On seeing the said witnesses and condition of Baby, all the above said persons ran away from the spot and while leaving they openly threatened that today, he has been saved but in future, he will be killed on finding opportunity. The applicant -complainant along with other persons brought Baby to M.M. Medical College, where she remained under treatment, for about 15 days. The applicant -complainant reported the matter to the police of P.S. Mullana. He was assured by respondent/accused No. 7, ASI Narinder Singh that action will be taken as he has lodged the report. Respondent/accused No. 7 had also obtained the thumb impression of the applicant -complainant on 2/3 papers. Thereafter, respondent/accused No. 7 called the applicant -complainant in Police Station Mullana on 15.08.2005 where all the accused were present and in the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 6, the accused No. 7 pressurized the applicant -complainant to compromise the matter with the accused persons. But the applicant -complainant refused to accept this demand of accused No. 7. Thereafter, all the accused talked to accused No. 7 privately on one side of Police Station and went outside the police station. Thereafter, accused No. 7 took the applicant -complainant inside the room and gave fists and kicks blows and threatened him with dire consequences, if he is not ready to withdraw the complainant. The accused No. 7 further threatened that he is the person, who can involve him in some other false cases. The accused persons even after committing the crime used to frequently roam in the village and threatened that they would repeat this act again and nobody can cause harm to them. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

(3.) IN pre -charge evidence, the complainant examined Baby as PW1, Dr. Gurmeet Singh as PW2 and himself stepped into witness box as PW3. On the basis of pre -charge evidence, respondents -accused No. 1 to 6 were charge -sheeted for the commission of offences under Sections 323, 452 read with Section 149 IPC, to which, they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial.