AMAR SINGH MISTRI Vs. BHAGWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was summoned to stand trial in a complaint filed by respondent. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant and her family members belong to Congress Party. The accused was pressurizing complainant and her family members to cast their votes for Akali Dal. On 9.12.1999, petitioner accompanied by three unidentified persons came to the shop of complainant/respondent. The complainant/respondent was having grocery shop. At that time, petitioner was armed with a gandasa. The three unidentified ;persons caught hold of the husband of complainant and petitioner caused injuries to the complainant with gandasa on her right arm and wrist joint. The complainant had suffered injuries, due to which she fell on the ground. The complainant was examined 9.12.1999 at 9.35 P.M. and the following injuries were found on her person:

(2.) PETITIONER was charged by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, that on 9.12.1999, he had voluntarily caused simple injuries to Bhagwanti in her shop and thereby he committed offence under Section 323 IPC. Petitioner was also charged for an offence under Section 382 IPC as he had committed theft of Rs. 5,000/ - and of other karyana goods from the shop of the complainant. Trial Court acquitted the petitioner under Section 382 IPC, however, convicted the petitioner under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injury to Bhagwanti, complainant, with blunt weapon and had sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court had also dismissed the appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that he is not in a position to assail conviction of petitioner recorded by the two Courts below as complainant -injured Bhagwanti had appeared in the Court and had deposed against the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the fact that complaint was filed after a delay of 26 days has been considered by the two Courts below and the two Courts below found that delay stood explained. He further submitted that the two Courts below have also taken into consideration that Mohan Singh had appeared in preliminary evidence and had not appeared when the after -charge evidence was recorded, therefore, non -examination of independent witness was also considered by the two Courts below and the two Courts below have given due credence to testimony of Bhagwanti. Counsel further states that he be permitted to make an alternative prayer. He has stated that occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1999. He further stated that petitioner had gone to the shop of complainant armed with gandasa and he used the same from blunt side for causing simple injuries on the non -vital parts of the body complainant. It is further submitted that petitioner has undergone about one month of his actual sentence. Counsel further submits that taking into consideration long protracted trial, release of petitioner on probation be considered. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has not committed any offence prior to this occurrence and thereafter. He further submits that petitioner is sole bread earner of his family and he is pursuing avocation of mason and his whole family is dependent upon him for survival.