BALWINDER SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been moved under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1.9.2014 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran.

(2.) Briefly stated, the applicant-complainant has filed a complaint under Sections 307, 452, 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the respondents-accused. As per the complaint, on 19.9.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. the complainant along with his wife and mother was sitting in the courtyard of his house. His brother-in-law Harjinder Singh and his friend Jassa Singh were also sitting inside the house. When they all were present in the house, accused Surjit Kaur empty handed, accused Manmohan Singh armed with Kulhari and accused Amritpal Singh @ Raju armed with Dang forcibly entered into his house. While accused Surjit Kaur raised a Lalkara that the complainant be taught a lesson for not providing land in the village and threatened to kill him, accused Manmohan Singh gave a Kulhari blow on the complainant with motive to kill him which hit on his forehead. Then accused Amritpal Singh gave Dang blow on the complainant which hit on his back. On hearing noise of the complainant, his wife, mother, brother-inlaw and friend came at the spot. All the accused ran away from there with their respective weapons. After arranging a vehicle, the complainant was admitted in civil hospital where he got treatment till 27.9.2006. The motive behind the occurrence was that accused No.1 and 2, namely, Surjit Kaur and Manmohan Singh @ Sonu were demanding vacant property from the complainant to which he refused and out of this grudge, the accused caused injuries to the complainant.

(3.) On the basis of preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant, the accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 452, 324 and 506 IPC vide order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the accused put in appearance and were ordered to be released on bail. On the basis of pre-charge evidence, the Court found sufficient ground for presuming that the accused have committed offence under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused were charge-sheeted for the said offences to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.