KUSHAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed assailing order dated 2nd March, 2007 whereby cognizance has been taken on application filed by Public Prosecutor Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against accused - petitioner for offence Under Sections 323, 341 & 325/34 IPC and the revision petition preferred by petitioner too was dismissed by a detailed order on 18th September, 2007.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for consideration are that a written report was submitted by injured Lovkesh in which it was alleged that on 28th August, 2004 at about 4 PM when he was returning back to Bharatpur from his Village Patholi, near Village Mai Gurjar, there were certain persons sitting in the Maruti Car who stopped him and persons sitting who were named specifically by him including present petitioner as well. They started beating him and so far as the present petitioner Kushal Singh is concerned, he gave hockey stoke on his mouth due to which his tooth were broken and certain other persons also gave him blow and inflicted injury to him and his wrist watch & Rs. 500/ - were also taken away. After investigation, challan was filed against Brij Mohan for offence Under Sections 323, 341 & 325 IPC. Pending trial and after statements of prosecution witnesses including injured Lovkesh PW -1 were recorded, application was filed by Public Prosecutor Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and made a request that in view of specific statements made by the prosecution witnesses, other persons including petitioner namely; Vijay Laxmi, Shalini, Kushal Singh [petitioner] & Sultan cognizance be taken against them as well. Learned trial Judge took note of the statements made by prosecution witnesses including PW -1 Lovkesh [injured] who has specifically deposed that hockey blow was attributed to present petitioner Kushal Singh and PW -2 Lal Singh also deposed the same statement during trial and attributed hockey stroke on the face of injured Lovkesh and so far as prosecution witness PW -3 Mahendra is concerned, he also named the petitioner. Even from the medical report, the injured Lovkesh sustained injuries on his face and one of his teeth was broken. So far as other persons named by Public Prosecutor Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance, trial Judge came to the conclusion that no specific averment has been made qua them and accordingly, considered to take cognizance against present petitioner. In view of specific averment made and deposed by prosecution witnesses including injured as well, in exercise of power Under Section 319 of the Code trial Judge took cognizance for offence Under Sections 323, 341 & 325/34 IPC and Revisional Court has also examined the order taking cognizance against accused -petitioner in detail and finally confirmed the order of trial Judge.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the misc. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.