DARSHANA KUMARI Vs. KALI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 4.11.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya -cum- Presiding Officer, Mobile Court at Mukerian (hereinafter described as Crl.Misc.No.152-MA of 2009 in 'the trial Court'). Since it has been filed after 24 days of the expiry of period of limitation, Crl.Misc.No.15566 of 2009 has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The trial Court awarded conviction to Girdhari Lal under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for brevity, 'the I.P.C.') and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of fifteen days. The respondents were, however, acquitted. Learned counsel for the applicant, while assailing the judgment of the trial Court, contended that the acquittal awarded to the respondents is erroneous and contrary to the record. He submitted that there was an unlawful assembly in which the applicant-complainant was given injuries. It was argued that Girdhari Lal, Kali Ram, Ramesh Chand, Kamla Devi, and Sunil Kumar were instrumental in creating violence leading to the injuries on the person of the applicant upon which a complaint was preferred by her under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. It was further argued that in the complaint, specific role was attributed to each of the accused persons, yet, the acquittal has been awarded to the respondents and, therefore, the reasoning adopted by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

(2.) I have thoughtfully considered the contentions/ arguments of Crl.Misc.No.152-MA of 2009 in the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the whole record.

(3.) The allegations made by the applicant were that the aggressors had come to her house and caused injuries to her. The trial Court noticed that there was no evidence to substantiate this plea that the respondents had trespassed into the house of the applicant. Apart from the oral statement, neither any site plan was prepared nor was produced nor was it corroborated by any independent witness. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the question of the respondents having trespassed into the house of the applicant and thereby committing of an offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C., cannot be faulted with. Even as far as the injuries are concerned, the allegations are that Girdhari Lal caused injuries to the applicant by a sharp edged weapon, whereas the other accused, who are respondents herein, had caused fist and kick blows to her, which have not been followed by any medical report even though the doctor was examined.