Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narayan Singh vs Baldev Singh And Ors on 15 January, 2016
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.A-343-MA of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision: January 15, 2016
Narayan Singh
...Applicant
Versus
Baldev Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Harsh Garg, Advocate
for the applicant.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
CRM No.30116 of 2013 Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 67 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is condoned.
CRM No.A-343-MA of 2013 Applicant-Narayan Singh has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against Baldev Singh and other respondents, challenging the judgment dated 10.01.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, whereby accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges.
It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further VINEET GULATI 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-343-MA of 2013 -2- stated that the applicant was assaulted by the respondents on 31.08.2007 at 11.00 A.M. The motive was that brother of the complainant Joginder Singh was a witness in FIR No.19 dated 14.02.2001 registered against the accused party. As the applicant was in danger of loosing his finger, he went for the medical help whereas the accused taking advantage of that, got the FIR No.206 dated 31.08.2007 registered. Since the cross version of the applicant was not registered by the police, he filed the private complaint. It is also stated that vide judgment dated 10.01.2013, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents while convicted the applicant and his brother. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to file the appeal be granted.
As per the record, the complainant Narayan Singh filed a complaint against accused Baldev Singh, Daler Singh, Gurbaksh Singh and Karnail Singh under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 IPC. As per complainant's version, on 31.08.2007 at about 11.00 A.M., when the complainant was going on his way on the road, all the accused restrained him and threatened him to teach a lesson. The motive behind the attack was that the brother of the complainant namely Joginder Singh was witness in FIR No.19 dated 14.02.2001 registered against the accused party. The accused were pressurizing the complainant and his brother Joginder Singh for not deposing in the Court against them and they also pressurized the complainant and his brother on the day of hearing of the case. When the complainant resisted, then accused Baldev attacked him with a stick/danda on the VINEET GULATI 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-343-MA of 2013 -3- middle finger of his right hand and all other accused gave him fist and leg blows on his face, stomach, back etc. The accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned JMIC, Kaithal, after discussing the evidence on record, acquitted the accused- respondents. The Court after discussing the evidence and the averments in the complaint held that as per complaint Ex.PZ, the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence are Jarnail Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Sewa Singh but the complainant while appearing as PW-3 stated in his examination-in-chief that Joginder Singh was also present at the spot before the witnesses reached at the spot. The complainant further admitted in his cross-examination that FIR No.206 dated 31.08.2007 was registered against him and others. He further admitted that eye witness Jarnail Singh is brother-in-law of his brother Joginder Singh and eye witness Gurmukh Singh is his brother-in-law. He further admitted that Baldev Singh was pursuing the civil litigation of Devender Pal and Narender Pal. He also stated that as a result of the injuries, blood oozed out from his finger. However, as per the MLR Ex.PW1/A and statement of PW-1, no wound on any finger of right hand was found and no dressing was done by the Medical Officer of right hand and there was only complaint of pain and swelling on the middle finger of right hand. The complainant further stated in his cross-examination that no complaint in writing was made to Police Station Pundri regarding the occurrence. PW-2, though deposed in examination-in-chief that there was a fracture on the middle finger of VINEET GULATI 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-343-MA of 2013 -4- right hand of the complainant but in his cross-examination, he stated that x-ray films are not on the judicial file and he is not a radiologist, which means that neither x-ray films have been produced nor the radiologist has been examined. PW-2 also stated that x-ray was conducted on 04.09.2007. The Court held that no plausible explanation has come on the record as to why the complainant did not seek any medical aid on 31.08.2007 if there was a fracture on his finger.
The Court after discussing the evidence on record held that in view of cross-examination of the witnesses, especially the complainant, is of the considered view that the present complaint has been filed as counter blast to the FIR registered against the complainant and others.
The occurrence took place on 31.08.2007 whereas the complaint was filed on 14.09.2007. Otherwise also, from the evidence on record, I find that the complainant has not proved the injuries on the person of accused side. The findings in the impugned judgment are correctly given by appreciating the evidence in right perspective. Nothing has been shown as to how the findings are perverse or against the law. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the finding given by learned JMIC, Kaithal, are as per evidence. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse. The judgment dated 10.01.2013 passed by VINEET GULATI 2016.01.27 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-343-MA of 2013 -5- learned JMIC, Kaithal, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court.
Keeping in view above facts and circumstances, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.
January 15, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2016.01.27 11:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh