GURDEEP KAUR Vs. LAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT criminal revision petition, at the instance of complainant, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Juidge, Ferozepur, whereby appeal of the convicts -respondents No. 1 & 2, against the judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad (West), was allowed and their conviction was set aside. However, respondent No. 3 i.e. Santokh Singh was held guilty under Sections 148, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) but he was extended benefit of probation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are that on 29.10.2002 Gurdeep Kaur complainant got recorded her statement with ASI Gurbhej Singh (hereinafter to be referred as the Investigating Officer) to the effect that she was resident of Village Tare Wala and having two sons and two daughters. In the year 1980 -81, her husband Kala Singh purchased 1 kanal land from Chaudhary Khiwa Ram for a sum of Rs. 2260/ - which was within the red line area and the writing to that effect was done on a plan paper and on behalf of Khiwa Ram, the document of sale was signed by his son Surain Singh and they had been residing in the same land since 1980 and had temporary residence at Village Kathgarh. She further alleged that on 28.10.2002 at about 6.15 P.M. she was working in the kitchen of her house and her daughter was sitting in her room and at that time, electric lamp was switched on and omitting light outside the room and at that time accused came on a Eicher Tractor being driven by Neetu and they struck the tractor against the wall of the kitchen. Lal Singh empty handed, Santokh Singh armed with Gandasi, Resham Singh armed with Dang, Bimla Rani, Monika Rani and Harbans Kaur came there and entered into their house along with their weapons. She alleged that Lal Singh raised Lalkara that the women were alone at home and they be thrown out of the house. Then Santokh Singh gave a Gandasi blow hitting her on her left hand and Harbans Kaur gave her a Thappa blow hitting her on her backside and Bimla Rani pulled her hair and on her raising alarm, her daughter Kamlesh Rani who at that time was studying in the room came out for her rescue. She further alleged that Neetu gave her a Dang blow hitting on her head and Resham Singh gave a Dang blow to her daughter which hit her at her left thigh and then all the accused gave them pulls and pushes and her ear rings also dropped at the place of occurrence. At that time, her husband Kala Singh came and witnessed the entire occurrence and on their raising alarm, all the accused fled away from the spot on tractor trolley along with their respective weapons. Thereafter, her husband after arranging a Jeep got them admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalalabad where they were medico -legally examined. The motive behind the occurrence was that the accused wanted to dispossess them. Upon this statement of the complainant, case was registered. The investigation was carried out, during which accused Harbans Kaur, Bimla Rani and Monika were found to be innocent by the police and they were put in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and challan was presented in the Court only against accused Santokh Singh, Lal Singh, Gurmit Singh and Resham Singh.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 05 PWs, besides producing on record other relevant documentary evidence. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record, was put to the accused. They denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, alleged false implication and pleaded complete innocence. However, accused did not lead any evidence in their defence.