SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby while setting aside the judgment dated 08.04.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalalabad, the matter was remitted to the learned trial Court to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law.

(2.) As would emerge from the facts of the case, respondent No.2-Preeto Bai had filed a complaint under Sections 452/323/324/148/149 IPC against the present petitioners with the allegations that the petitioners had filed a civil suit at Fazilka against the complainant's husband and her brother-inlaw. The said suit was dismissed. Petitioner-Santokh Singh while admitting their possession had filed another civil suit in the Court at Jalalabad, which was pending. It was further alleged that on 16.10.2013, at about 9.00 a.m., the respondentcomplainant was sweeping her courtyard, when suddenly the petitioners had sneaked into her house by raising an exhortation (lalkara). At that time, they had been armed with sota (sticks) and they had uttered filthy language and abused the complainant. When the complainant tried to resist them, they told the complainant that she had occupied their land and they would get it back from the complainant forcibly. In the meantime, petitioner-Santokh Singh pushed the complainant in the paddy crop whereupon she fell down as a result of which, she had received an injury on her shoulder. The complainant further alleged that she had been given a stick blow by petitioner-Satnam Singh which hit her lower back, whereas petitioner-Rato Bai gave stick blow on the right buttock of the complainant. Petitioners-Jarnail Singh and Iqbal Singh pulled her by her hair. When she raised an alarm, complainant's brother-in-law Chiman Singh and one Krishana Bai came to the spot. They both had witnessed the occurrence but in the meantime, all the accused fled the scene while extending her the threats to kill. The complainant was removed to the hospital where she was medico-legally examined and her statement was recorded.

(3.) In the preliminary evidence, complainant herself appeared as CW-1 and reiterated the aforesaid version. She further examined Chiman Singh as CW 2 and Krishana Bai as CW 3. The other witnesses examined were formal in nature.