Surinder Kaur vs Devinder Singh

M.L. Singhal, J.

Delay condoned.

This is revision against the order dated 25.7.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, IInd class, Hoshiarpur, acquitting Devinder Singh accused (respondent) in case FIR No. 110 dated 6.11.1995 under Sections 323/324 IPC registered at PS Mahilpur.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 3.11.1995 at about 5.00 P.M, Surinder Kaur was feeding fodder to the cattle in her haveli where Devinder Singh accused threatened her that he would teach her a lesson for removing bricks from the wall. Devinder Singh gave two sickle blows on the head of Surinder Kaur. She raised raula "Mar ditta, Mar ditta". He then threw away the sickle and took sota in his hand and gave her sota blows on her left forearm, left cheek and neck. Her husband, Balbir Singh, who was cutting fodder nearby at a foddercutter, came and rescued her from Devinder Singh. Devinder Singh ran away with sickle and sota. Balbir Singh witnessed the occurrence. Accused Devinder Singh is her husband''s younger brother. After the incident, Surinder Kaur went to Paldi hospital from where she was referred to Civil Hospital, Mahilpur where she was admitted on 4.11.1995. On receipt of M.L.R., ASI Ram Chand contacted the doctor at 2.50 P.M. on 4.11.1995 and the doctor declared her unfit to make statement. On 5.11.1995 at about 7.00 P.M., the doctor again declared her unfit to make statement. On 6.11.1995 at about 5.00 P.M., She was found fit to make statement by the doctor. She accordingly made statement Ex. P8 before ASI Ram Chand. On her medical examination, doctor found six injuries on her person, out of which, two injuries were found to be the result of a sharpedged weapon while other four injuries were found to be the result of blunt weapon. After investigation, the accused challaned. Accused was charged under Section 323/324 IPC.

On the conclusion of trial, Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Hoshiarpur found the charge not proved against the accused. He accordingly acquitted him vide order dated 25.7.1997.

Learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused recorded that there was three days delay in reporting the matter to the police and delay had not been satisfactorily explained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that occurrence took place on 3.11.1995 at about 5.00 P.M. Surinder Kaurinjured was medically examined on 4.11.195 at 12.45 P.M. ASI Ram Chand contacted the doctor on 4.11.1995 at about 2.50 P.M. for recording the statement of Surinder Kaur. The doctor opined that she was unfit to make statement. On 5.11.1995 at about 7.00 P.M., she was found unfit to make statement. On 6.11.1995 at about 5.00 P.M., She was found fit to make statement and then her statement Ex. PB was recorded. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that assuming that there was delay in the lodging of the FIR to the police, delay was not misutilised. Devinder Singh is the only accused arraigned in the case. It was submitted that had there been someone else with him, it could have been said that delay was utilized to implead him. It was further submitted the Balbir Singh, eyewitness is Surinder Kaur''s husband and if somebody else had been introduced in the case, it could have been said that he was first sounded and then introduced in the case as an eyewitness and, the resultant delay in the lodging of the FIR.

It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there were strained relations between Surinder Kaur/Balbir Singh with Devinder Singhaccused, strained relations could work both ways. If Balbir Singh could implicate him falsely, Devinder Singh could also cause injuries to his wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once earlier also the accused had given injuries to Surinder Kaur and that matter was compromised, and the accused had made a number a complaints against the complainant/her husband before SDM, DSP Garhshankar and SHO PS Mahilpur and her husband was proceeded against in security proceedings on the complaint of the accused. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is not balanced. He has observed that there is enmity between these two brothers and possibility of implicating the accused is very high and because of this, a false case has been made against him and the only eyewitness is the interested witness. Learned Magistrate has not taken into account the other side of the coin, namely, that the accused could also cause injuries to Surinder Kaur with a view to silence her and her husband. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is onesided and he has failed to consider both sides of the coin.

In my opinion, the learned Magistrate appears to have not taken into account both sides of the coin and he has failed to strike a balance between the prosecution and the defence while making assessment of the prosecution evidence. So, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law after weighing the pros and cons of the version of both sides. Chief Judicial Magistrate will assign this case to any Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class posted at Hoshiarpur for being decided afresh after hearing both the parties.