Criminal Misc. No. 710-MA of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : May 15, 2009
Surender Singh and another
... Applicant/appellants
versus
Shree Chand and others
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant/appellants
K.C.Puri, J.
This is an appeal directed by the complainants against judgment
dated 23.3.2007 passed by Mr. Virender Malik, Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Kosli, vide which complaint under sections 323, 325, 147, 148,
149, 506, 447 IPC filed by the complainants against the accused-
respondents, was dismissed. The complainants have alleged that their
uncle Luxmi Narayan had purchased the land measuring 2 kanal 13 marlas
from the land 9 kanal 8 marla vide registered sale deed dated 23.4.1997 and
become owner of that land. Their uncle had sown the arhar crop on the
said land. On 13.10.1997, at about 5.00 PM, when they were harvesting the
crops, accused persons came there armed with lathis and jellies and asked
them that they will teach the lesson for purchasing the land. Accused Shree
Chand gave a jelly blow to Surender on his right hand. Blood was oozing
Criminal Misc. No. 710-MA of 2008 (O&M) -2-
and his right hand’s little finger was got fractured. Accused Raj Kumar
gave a lathi blow to Jogender and accused Suresh gave lathi blow on the
back of Jogender. Accused Roshan gave a lathi blow on the head of
Jogender and accused Nos. 4 to 9 gave fist blows to the complainants. On
raising alarm, Luxmi Narayan, Fateh Singh and Heera Lal came there and
rescued them from the clutches of the accused persons. On 14.10.1997, the
complainants were got medico-legally examined and X-ray was conducted
on 23.10.1997. The matter was reported to the police but no action was
taken. Hence, the complaint was filed.
In the preliminary evidence, complainants examined
themselves as PW1 and PW2 and also examined Mangtu Ram PW3, Fateh
Singh PW4, Luxmi Narayana PW5 and closed their preliminary evidence.
The accused were ordered to be summoned under sections 323,
325, 34 IPC by the trial court.
In pre-charge evidence, the complainants themselves appeared
and also examined Fateh Singh PW1, Mangtu Ram PW2, Dr. Vinod Kumar
PW3. The accused were charge sheeted under sections 148, 323, 324 IPC
read with section 149 IPC.
After charge, the complainants appeared for cross-examination
and learned defence counsel states that he does not want to cross-examine
the remaining witnesses after charge.
Learned trial court after appraisal of the evidence reached to the
conclusion that no case for conviction is made out. Consequently, the
accused were acquitted.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said judgment, the
complainants have preferred the present appeal.
Criminal Misc. No. 710-MA of 2008 (O&M) -3-
There is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condonation of delay of 556 days in filing the appeal.
The only ground taken in the application for condonation of
delay is that the Clerk of the counsel for the complainants in the trial court
has not informed the appellant about the preparation of the copy of the
judgment. It cannot be believed that there could be delay of more than one
and half years. No name of the Clerk of counsel for the complainants has
been given nor affidavit of any Clerk has been placed on the file. So no
ground for condonation of delay is made out.
On merits also, from the perusal of medical evidence it is
revealed that there was only one lacerated wound on the lateral aspect of left
little finger, middle and terminal phalynx of Surender. There was one
abrasion on the left hand of Jogender and other two injuries were complaint
of pain and there was no mark of injury. The appellants wanted the
conviction of nine persons for those two injuries. Learned trial court has
observed that the evidence produced by the prosecution is highly discrepant,
as detailed in para no. 18 of the judgment. The trial court has elaborately
dealt with each aspect of the case. So, on merits also, no ground for
interference is made out. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal
as well as appeal stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri )
May 15, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'