AMRIK SINGH Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
S.Ravindra Bhat, J. -
(1.) This petition challenges a judgment and order by which the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused in a complaint case. The
petitioner was the complainant and had alleged commission of offences punishable
under Sections 323/506 IPC on 03.10.87.
(2.) As per the petitioner/complainant, a resident of Ramjas Road, Karol
Bagh, the accused Bhagwan Singh (who died during the course of the proceedings)
was known to him; he was his tenant. The other accused namely, Rajpal Kaur was
the wife of the first accused. The material allegations were that on 02.10.87,
the complainant went to collect rent and when returning and talking to one Shyam
Sunder in the street, the second accused Rajpal Kaur, without any provocation
attacked him and snatched his spectacles. It was also alleged that both the
accused assaulted and threw away his turban in order to hurt his religious
sentiments. The complainant alleged that one Darshan Lal, who happened to be
there, rescued him and informed the police. It was also contended that the
articles of the petitioner were recovered and he was medically examined.
(3.) The Court, after considering the pre-summoning evidence, issued process
and subsequently notice under Section 251; the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. In the course of the trial, the complainant relied on the
testimony of three witnesses. The principal witnesses were PW-1 Darshan Lal and
the Medical Officer. The prosecution also relied upon the testimony of Surender
who was not examined at the pre-summoning stage. Darshan Lal had deposed during
the pre-summoning stage but his evidence could not be recorded during the trial
since he had expired in the meanwhile. The testimony of Surender was that he
had witnessed the incident which according to him occurred at 3:00 p.m. on
02.10.87 a public holiday whilst he was on his way back home. According to his
statement he implicated not only the accused but their two children, who at that
time were admittedly minors.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.