GOVIND RAM Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the complainant petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 3.12.2005 whereby the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Pindwara, District, Sirohi acquitted the non-petitioners while giving benefit of doubt from the charges levelled against them for committing offence under Sections 452, 341 and 323/34 I.P.C.

(2.) According to the facts of the case, petitioner lodged a F.I.R. on 7.11.2002 at Police Station, Saroopganj stating therein that on 7.11.2002 at about 1.00 P.M. when he was standing at the door of his house, accused non-petitioners No.2 and 3 came there armed with lathi and hockey in their hands and inflicted blows on his head as a result of which he fell down and at that time one Raju and Vijayraj came there to his rescue and the non-petitioners ran away. Upon this the police registered F.I.R. No.204/2002 for offence under Sections 451, 323 and 341 I.P.C. and after usual investigation filed challan under Sections 451, 323 and 341 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate after trial and after recording prosecution evidence acquitted the non-petitioners No.2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment dated 3.12.2005 acquitting the non-petitioners No.2 and 3 is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in this case Vijayraj is the eye-witness but from perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court it is clear that despite the fact that he was an important witness the learned trial Court did not take serious steps to summon him in Court. He was also not produced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that findings of the learned trial Court are based upon evidence led by the defence while ignoring the evidence of prosecution on material aspects. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial Court deserved to be quashed. It is also contended that only on the ground that another eye-witness PW-1 Raju, who has been declared hostile, the prosecution story cannot be thrown out. The whose evidence was required to be taken into account for the purpose of convicting the non-petitioners. It is also contended that medical evidence is also corroborating the prosecution story as per the statement of Dr.Dau Lal Chauhan (PW-5). It is further contended that the trial Court has erred in law by relying upon the statements of Ashok Kumar (DW-2) and Kheta Ram (DW-3), their testimony cannot be accepted because Ram Kumar is the uncle of non-petitioner No.3 Prashant and Kheta Ram is cousin of non-petitioner No.2 Moda. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal based on perverse findings.