MANGA SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH (P&H)(D.B.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the accompanying application filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal. It is averred that the applicant came to know after consulting his counsel that the time-limit to file the appeal was 60 days only and not 90 days due to which the delay of 20 days has occurred.

(2.) On consideration of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant party, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, issued process to the respondents who were summoned to face trial under the above-mentioned provisions of IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The applicant-appellant appeared as PW1 and also produced Buta Singh and Makhan Singh as PW2 and PW3, respectively. The respondents in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and pleaded that they were innocent and falsely implicated. They also examined Pipal Singh as DW1 who was stated to be Sarpanch of the village in their defence evidence, besides DW2 Shiv Lal, Senior Assistant, Election and DW3 Rashpal Singh, ex-member of the Gram Panchayat etc.

(3.) Learned trial Court has found that the occurrence statedly took place on 18.10.2008 at about 09.00 a.m. whereas the complaint was filed after a delay of 21 days, i.e. on 08.11.2008. The complainant gave an explanation that he had earlier reported the matter to the police but finding no action being taken by the police, the private complaint was filed. Such an explanation however did not impress the learned trial Court as no police record was summoned by the complainant to prove that any complaint was made or that he reported the matter to Police Station Sardulgarh on 18.10.2008. The application, if any, moved to the higher authorities has also not been proved on record as per law. Learned trial Court has further observed that there was a motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons as he admitted that another injury case has been pending between the parties in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh and that his father has also filed a criminal complaint against some of the accused, i.e. Barjinder Singh and others under Sections 326 and 452 IPC in which the complainant was a witness. Eleven persons were implicated in that complaint but only 2-3 persons were summoned and the complaint was eventually dismissed.