JAGAT SINGH Vs. WARYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGAT Singh has filed this revision against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on 22 -7 -1974 acquitting the respondents of all the charges against them.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is, that on 18th December, 1970 at about 4 P.M. Tehsildar Samba, went to village Koolpur, for spot inspection to find out whether the land in dispute, situate in Akhara Brahim Butta Jagir, was in possession of Dharmsala Brahm Butta or of the Gurudawara of the village. After the Tehsildar had left the village, after spot inspection, it is alleged that the respondents asked the petitioner Jagat Singh as to why he had misled the Tehsildar. It is then alleged that all of them in prosecution of their common object attacked the petitioner. It is further alleged that when the petitioner raised hue and cry, Mehal Singh and Sardar Singh P.Ws reached the spot and saved him from the clutches of the accused -respondents. The First Information Report was made at Thana Ramgarh on 19 -12 -70 and the police after concluding the investigation challaned the accused to stand their trial in the court of the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Samba, to answer charges for offences under section, 147 and 323 R.P.C. The learned trial court convicted all the accused respondents and sentenced each one of them to one months rigorous imprisonment on each count. The accused respondents preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu, vide his order dated 22 -7 -1974 acquitted the accused respondents. In the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the name of Ajit Singh accused -respondent has been omitted from the array of the appellants, although Ajit Singh alongwith the other convicts had filed the appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(3.) MR . Sehgal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not consider the entire evidence on the record and also overlooked the material part of the evidence while acquitting the accused -respondents. He has further canvassed that the evidence was not properly appreciated by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the various grounds given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused respondents were not sustainable as they were based on mis -reading and mis -appreciation of the evidence on the record. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1974 SC 276 and AIR 1975 SC 1985 in support of the submissions that the witnesses had been wrongly disbelieved by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, and therefore, there had been a wrong acquittal. It has also been submitted that the omission of the name of Ajit Singh from the array of appellants was enough to vitiate the judgment.