STATE OF HARYANA Vs. AJMER SINGH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall also dispose of Crl. Revision No. 531 of 1997, filed by the complainant, as both the matters arise out of a judgment dated 7.9.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Sessions case No. 45 of 1996 (Sessions trial No. 39 of 1996), recording acquittal of the accused persons of the charges under Ss. 307/34 and 452 IPC.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, an information was received at 4.30 PM on 4.7.1989 in Police Post, Toraori, that one Ram Kishan had been admitted in General Hospital, Karnal, in injured condition. Head Constable Rajbir Singh (PW 8) accordingly went to the hospital, and recorded the statement of his son Ishpal, on the basis of which an FIR ( No. 317) was registered against accused Rajpal and others in respect of the main occurrence where Ram Kishan had sustained injuries. As regards the present incident, the complainant, Ishpal, who claimed to be the eyewitness, stated that after the main occurrence had taken place near the field of one Kirtu Brahmin, the present occurrence (second one) took place when his uncle injured Ramdhari reached the village. He was assaulted by accused Naresh and Ram Kumar. However, the complainant could not give the details as to in what manner the incident had taken place. After recording the statement of the complainant; on 6.7.1989, ASI Yad Ram (PW 4) of PS Butana recorded the statement of injured Ramdhari himself in the hospital. He also seized one parcel containing the shirt of the injured which had been handed over to him by Dr. Rakesh Mittal of General Hospital, Karnal, vide memo Exh. PD. The injured was referred to for radiological examination and Dr. R.S.Chaudhary (PW 1) conducted the x - ray examination. He found a fracture on parieto occipital region vide x -ray report Ex. PA. However, the police did not seek the opinion of Physician Dr. Rakesh Mittal, who had initially medically examined the injured and had referred the patient for radiological test. On the contrary, they sought the opinion of the Radiologist, as to the nature of injuries and not of the Surgeon, Dr.Mittal, who had initially examined the injured. The Radiologist opined that injury No. 1 located on the person of Ramdhari was dangerous to life.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.