Gopi Chand vs Bishan Dayal and Others

Uma Nath Singh, J.—This criminal revision by the complainant has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.10.2001 recorded by learned JMIC, Narnaul in criminal case No. 135/2000 u/s 325/34 IPC.

The brief facts of the case as set out in the impugned judgment on reproduction read as under: -

The prosecution case in brief is that the FIR in this case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Gopi Chand son of Dhinga Ram. The complainant stated that he is resident of village Barkoda and works as a Munim (Accountant) on the shop of Naryaina Parsad. On 2.3.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. he was purchasing some domestic items from the shop of Karam Chand Jawahar Lai. At that place he met Bishan Bania. Bishan said to the complainant that he has promised him when Radhey Shyam DTC will loose the elections that he will provide him sweets. During the conversation the complainant was annoyed by Bishan Singh and his son whose name he do not know, Bishan Sigh and his son started calling names to the complainant. In the meanwhile son of Bishan throw ''koncha'' towards the complainant which hit on his forehead. Bishan also took the ''koncha'' from the son and again hit the same on the face of the complainant. Due to this one teeth of the complainant was broken. The complainant raised alarm upon which he was rescued by Subhash. The said incident was also seen by Dharam Chand and his son Omi and Jawahar. The complainant requested for suitable action against the accused. Thereupon, the police made investigations. Necessary medico legal report was obtained in respect of the complainant. Statements u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded by the Police. After completing all the formalities, the police put up the requisite challan against the accused under S.325 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Copies of challan were supplied to the accused u/s 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Under a prima facie case u/s 325 read with Section 34 of IPC was made out against the accused, therefore, the accused were charge sheeted accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal has been recorded on the grounds that complainant Gopi Chand was not produced in the witness-box and that except the official witnesses no other witness was examined in support of the prosecution case.

On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecution examined five witnesses namely (i) Dr.R.K.Verma (PW1) (who conducted medico-legal examination of complainant Gopi Chand); (ii) Dr.R.K.Jain (PW2) (Dental Surgeon who examined the complainant); (iii) Niranjan Lai (PW3) (who presented the challan); (iv) Ran Singh HC (PW4) (who entered the report No.36 dated 2.3.2000) and (v) Mange Ram ASI (PW5) (the investigating officer), but they are only official witnesses. Moreover, despite several opportunities having been granted to the prosecution, no other witness was produced to prove the complicity of the accused with the alleged offence.

As the material witnesses including the complainant who could have deposed about connection of the accused with the crime alleged, was not brought to the witness-box, the trial court had no option but to dispense with statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as no incriminating material/evidence had come on record against the accused.

Thus, I do not find any infirmity as regards the correctness, legality and proprietary of judgment calling for exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court.

Hence, revision is dismissed.