STATE OF H.P. Vs. AVINASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, on December 31, 1996. In Criminal Case No. 148-II of 1993.

(2.) All the Respondents-accused were charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (briefly, "the Code"). The case of the prosecution was that on April 22, 1993, at about 6.30 p.m. in Jain Mohalla of Nadaun, all the accused persons voluntarily caused injuries to PW 1 complainant. According to prosecution story, on the day of incident, complainant Brij Mohan was sitting in his shop. Meanwhile, accused No. 1 Avinash Chand and accused No. 2 Manoj Verma @ Happy, son of accused No. 1, came on a motor cycle. They parked the motor cycle in front of the shop of the complainant. Accused No. 2 was having two sticks in his hand. They got down from the motor cycle; both of them took one stick, abused the complainant and asked him to come out of the shop. The complainant refused to do so. Meanwhile, accused No. 3, Asha Rani, wife of accused No. 1, reached there. She was also armed with a Danda. All the three accused forcibly entered into the shop of the complainant and caused injuries to him. On hearing the noise and cries of complainant Brij Mohan, PW 8 Vishwajit @ Kaka, son of Prem Shanker came there. He snatched away Danda from the hands of accused No. 2 and threw it outside the shop. Even thereafter accused No. 2 continued beating the complainant with fist blows. PW8 Vishawjit @ Kaka saved Brij Mohan from the clutches of the accused. During the incident, Janak Rani and Jamuna Devi (PW 2), mother of the complainant arrived and they also saw the incident. Even while leaving the place of occurrence, the accused caused damage to window of Niranjan Jain, brother of the complainant. Threats were also administered to the complainant that on that day he was saved but in future the accused would not spare him.

(3.) A complaint was filed, usual investigation was made and the accused were asked to face the trial. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication. They did not lead any evidence in support of their defence.