GULDEV SINGH BHANDARI Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein in this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C'), by the appellant, who was complainant in the learned court below, is against acquittal of the respondents herein, being the accused, for the offences under Sections 451, 500, 506 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), vide judgment dated 31.12.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. (I), Amb, District Una, H.P., in complaint No. 75-I-2003/24-II-2003, titled Guldev Singh Bhandari Vs. Jaspal Singh and others.

(2.) IN brief the case set up by the complainant is that he is an employee of Punjab and Sind Bank. On or about 30.12.2002, when the complaint was filed, he was posted in the branch of the said bank at Mubarikpur, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, H.P., and was under "illegal suspension". On 27.12.2002, he was sleeping at the backside of his residential house after taking prescribed medicine, while his wife and two daughters were working inside the room. At about 2.15 PM, the accused straightway entered the room of his house without any prior information and without any permission. They came there in a hired private vehicle bearing registration No. HR-44A-3513 (approximate). His wife and children were busy in the household chores. The accused started abusing his wife and children in a filthy language. His wife resisted their entrance and directed them to leave the room. Upon this, accused No. 1 to 3 asked the gunman, who was armed with loaded double barrel gun, to take away wife of the complainant in their vehicle. On this, she raised an alarm and in the meantime some persons from the nearby house rushed towards the house of the complainant. However, in the meanwhile, the accused fled away from the spot in their vehicle. It was further alleged that while leaving they also threatened the complaint's wife that they would again come to their house during night time and that they should be ready for dire consequences. According to the complainant, the accused defamed the complainant and his family members very badly by proclaiming that " Himachalio Ne Hamara Bank Loot Liya Hai, Yeh Sab Chore Hai. Hum IN Ko Jinda Na Chodegai". On listening the hue and cry, the complainant also woke up, but by then the accused had fled from the spot. It was further averred that there was danger to the life of the complainant at the hands of the accused, who forcibly entered his house to harm the reputation of the family, cause bodily injury and to cause intimidation in a pre-planned conspiracy. The matter was reported to the police telephonically as well as through written complaint on the same day, but as the accused are very influential persons, no action was taken by the police.

(3.) THEREAFTER, on 29.10.2003, the complainant led preliminary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint, in which he appeared as CW-1 and examined his wife CW-2 Smt. Sangita Devi and another witness CW-3 Khem Chand, on the basis of which and taking into consideration inquiry report submitted by the police, the learned trial Judge took cognizance and summoned the accused, who were served with notices of accusation. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined four witnesses including himself. THEREAFTER, the accused were examined by the learned trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, while admitting that though they had gone to the house of the complainant in connection with the departmental inquiry pending against him, yet they had not entered the house and no such incident as alleged in the complaint had ever taken place, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence evidence they tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-21.