DALER SINGH Vs. BHAJAN RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Daler Singh had filed a complaint under Sections 323, 324, 342, 506, 148 and 149 IPC against Prem Chand, Bhajan Ram, Kishan Chand, Jille Singh, Roshan, Mahinder, Rajender, Balwan and Suresh on the allegations that on 23.9.2009 at about 8:00 p.m. when the complainant was returning to his house and had reached near house of accused Prem Chand, then Prem Chand having a lathi assaulted the complainant causing him injury on his right arm; then Bhajna Ram armed with barchha arrived at the spot and attacked the complainant therewith but the complainant saved himself by moving aside; Bhajna Ram further attacked with binda of kassi (wooden handle of spade) hitting the complainant on left side of forehead; the complainant raised an alarm, hearing which his brother Ram Mehar and father Jagdish arrived at the spot; in the meanwhile, accused Zile Singh, Roshan, Rajinder, Balwan and Mukesh reached at the spot and attacked the complainant, his brother Ram Mehar and father Jagdish with gandasies and lathies, however, the complainant, his brother Ram Mehar and father Jagdish were saved due to intervention of villagers. The injured was got medically examined. Under political pressure, police registered FIR No.308 dated 29.9.2009, under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the complainant but no action was taken against the accused. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint against them on 23.12.2009.

(2.) After recording of preliminary evidence, only accused Prem Chand, Bhajan Ram, Jile Singh, Roshan, Rajender and Balwan were summoned, whereas it was not so as regards the remaining accused Kishan Chand, Mahinder and Suresh. They (Prem Chand, Bhajan Ram, Jile Singh, Roshan, Rajender and Balwan) put in appearance and were granted bail. The case was fixed for pre-charge evidence during the course of which, the complainant examined himself as CW2, besides examining Balbir as CW1 and Dr.Sunita as CW3. After hearing the arguments, the trial Magistrate discharged the accused vide impugned order dated 31.8.2013. The reasons given for doing so are as under:

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has approached this Court moving an application under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of Special Leave to appeal.