HARJINDER KAUR Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Harjinder Kaur and others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the judgment pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dated 1.5.1995. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal filed by the accused and has set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate was directed to re-record the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Opportunity was to be given to lead fresh evidence in defence, if any.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 24.2.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. Deepo P. Masih a staff nurse of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (for short 'PGI') alongwith her colleague Ms. Krishna Kashyap and their two relations were sitting in the lawns of Nivedita Hostel, PGI. Suddenly a PGI van stopped at some distance. Three persons Gurbax Singh, Security Inspector, Ujagar Singh, Security Supervisor and Constable Kuldip Singh emerged from the van. They ordered Deepo P. Masih and three others to sit in the van. Deepo P. Maish, Krishna Kashyap and their two relations were forcibly made to sit in the van. They were taken to the Security Officer Shri D.S. Hora. Gurbax Singh and Ujagar Singh misbehaved and manhandled the male relatives of Deepo P. Masih. They were caught from their hairs. Harjinder Kaur was there and she asked the Security Officer to teach the staff nurses and their companions a lesson. Shri Hora severely gave beating to the male companions by pulling their hairs. They were slapped also. The staff nurses were directed to rub their noses which they did under duress. They were detained in the security office for about two hours and then allowed to go.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment held that with respect to certain offences, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not recorded any finding nor passed an order of sentence. It was noted that with respect to the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC no finding of conviction has been recorded. The judgment was silent with respect to the charge under Section 506 IPC framed against Gurbax Singh petitioner. Without recording findings on the proof of guilt under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against Gurbax Singh and Ujagar Singh, the learned Judicial Magistrate awarded them a sentence of Rs. 500/- each. In Addition to that the learned Additional Sessions Judge further recorded that while the statements of the accused were recorded, material questions pertaining to the evidence were not put to them. It caused grave and substantial prejudice. Accordingly acting under Section 386(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was remitted back to the learned judicial Magistrate.