Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dayawanti vs Nafe Singh & Ors on 19 December, 2015
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.A-1900-MA of 2014(O&M)
Date of decision: December 19, 2015
Smt.Dayawanti
...Petitioner
Versus
Nafe Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Rishav Jain, Advocate
for the applicant.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
CRM No.37896 of 2014 Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 9 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is condoned.
CRM No.A-1900-MA of 2014 Applicant-Dayawanti has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against Nafe Singh and other respondents, challenging the judgment dated 16.09.2014 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, whereby accused Nafe Singh was convicted under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and accused Roshan, Jagmohan and Subhash 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 2015.12.24 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-1900-MA of 2014 -2- stated that the findings and observations of the trial Court are against the law and facts on the file and as such, the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2014 is liable to be modified and all the accused are liable to be convicted in accordance with law.
As per the record, the complainant Dayawanti filed a complaint against accused Nafe Singh, Roshan, Jagmohan and Subhash under Sections 323, 394, 406 and 506 IPC. As per complainant's version, in the evening of 23.07.2010, her son Yogesh had gone to the shop of accused Nafe Singh for getting his T.V. repaired. Thereafter, Nafe Singh opened the T.V. for making repair but did not conduct any repairing work rather kept the T.V. with him and even refused to return the same. When her son demanded the T.V. back, then Nafe Singh started beating him and also snatched `2000/- from his pocket. It is further stated by the complainant that accused Roshan, Jagmohan and Subhash were also present there and all of them having common intention for beating her son and they gave beating to her son with dandas and iron rods by inflicting blows on his head, neck, back of chest, thigh, left leg and right ankle. A passerby had told her that her son was being beaten up and she along with her husband reached at the shop of Nafe Singh and found that all the accused were beating her son. The matter was reported to the police and the police only challaned accused under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Hence, the complaint was filed in the Court.
On the basis of preliminary evidence, learned trial Court summoned the accused under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. After VINEET GULATI 2015.12.24 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-1900-MA of 2014 -3- appreciating the evidence and after going through the record, learned Addl. CJM, Jind, vide impugned judgment dated 16.09.2014 acquitted Roshan, Jagmohan and Subhash but convicted accused Nafe Singh under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and sentenced him accordingly.
Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, appeal along with present application seeking leave to appeal has been filed.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record, especially the judgment passed by learned Addl. CJM, Jind.
From the record, first of all, I find that even as per complainant's version, there is nothing on the record as to which of these accused persons, who have been acquitted, are holding which weapon. No specific injury has been attributed to the above-said three persons. As per the complainant's version, the occurrence took place on 23.07.2010 and the matter was reported but the police had only challaned the accused under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. The injuries as deposed by CW-2 Dr.Rajender Kumar are only abrasions and contusions. Six injuries were shown by the doctor on the person of Yogesh. The perusal of these injuries itself show that these injuries can be caused by one person. If four persons with dandas and iron rods would cause injuries to one person for about 10 minutes, then the injuries would have been of more serious nature and must be much more in number. The complainant in cross-examination has stated that she had gone to the spot after about 10 minutes of receiving information from a passerby and the accused were still VINEET GULATI 2015.12.24 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-1900-MA of 2014 -4- beating Yogesh at that time. This version cannot be believed.
Learned Addl. CJM, Jind, after appreciating the evidence has acquitted accused Roshan, Jagmohan and Subhash. The evidence has been appreciated in right perspective. 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. As already discussed, vague and uncertain version has been given against respondents No.2 to 4 and only general allegations have been levelled regarding giving beating without specifying any specific injury and without specifying any weapon.
As regarding Nafe Singh, he has been convicted by the Court below and as argued, he has been released on probation by the learned lower Appellate Court. Nothing has been prayed in the present application regarding accused Nafe Singh.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the findings given by learned Addl. CJM, Jind, are as per evidence. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse. The judgment dated 16.09.2014 passed by learned Addl. CJM, Jind, is correct, as per law and evidence qua respondents No.2 to 4 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.
December 19, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2015.12.24 17:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh