STATE OF H. P. Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 15-5-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, H. P. in Cr. Case No. 79-11/99/95, acquitting the accused of the charged offence.

(2.) COMPLAINANT Saroj Kumari (PW 1) got her statement under S.154, Cr. P. C. recorded with the Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H. P. that she is resident of Malghota, Police Station Baijnath and in the morning of 31-1-1995 at about 11.15 a.m., after cleaning her house she threw the garbage on the side. Accused Bhagat Ram who was feeding his live stocks, started abusing her and inquired as to why she had thrown the garbage to which she replied that she had thrown the same at the very same place where she has been throwing earlier. At that the accused got enraged and hit her with "Pachar" (a long piece of fire wood) due to which she received injuries on her nose, right eye and head. When she raised hue and cry, her father Sant Ram came to rescue her to whom the said accused also gave a blow with 'Farua' (sharp agricultural implement of iron) as a result of which even he received injuries on his leg. Upon hearing the cries accused No. 2 Smt. Subhadra Devi came with "Darat" (sickle) and threatened her of dire consequences. Hearing the cries, complainant's mother Smt. Malkan Devi and sister Pinki Devi also came at the spot and rescued them from the clutches of the accused persons. Based on the same, FIR No. 16/95 was registered with Police Station Baijanth under S.323, 325, 348 and 506, I. P. C. The complainant was got medically examined and the medical report was taken by the police. The weapons of the offence 'Farua' Ext. P1 and "Pachar" Ext. P2 were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW 1/A.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and the statements of the accused under S.313, Cr. P. C. were also recorded. The defence of the accused is that the witnesses are of the same family and they have been falsely implicated. The scuffle, however, has been admitted. From the line of cross examination what emerges is that the complainant was the aggressor party who had entered the courtyard of accused No. 1 and had caused injuries to them.