MAYA BAI Vs. BHAJAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 27-3-1996 of the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed in Sessions Trial No. 7/92, by which the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 307, 294, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act also the alternative charge under the above Sections read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(2.) IT was alleged that on 20-10-1991 at about 7. 40 p. m. , the respondents had caused injuries to Mayabai (P. W. 1) and her husband Uttam Singh (P. W. 4) after abusing them in the public place with a view to cause death of Uttam Singh (P. W. 4) by striking him with Farsa (axe ). As per prosecution case, the complainant Uttam (P. W. 4) and accused Motilal lived in adjoining houses and there was estrangement between the two. On the date of the incident, when the complainant Uttam (P. W. 4) was in his house alongwith his wife Mayabai, daughter Laxmi and son Leeladhar, the accused abused them and challenged them to come out and when Uttam (P. W. 4) came out of the house to see as to what was happening followed by his wife Mayabai (P. W. 1), the accused Motilal with a Farsa (axe) in his hand, with a view to cause his death, struck blows on his neck and hand. When Jankibai came to save Uttam Singh, she was also assaulted. Uttam Singh sustained seven injuries. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Ranjhi, which was recorded by Station House Officer, R. S. Tiwari (P. W. 6 ). Injured were sent for medical examination and treatment of their injuries and the reports (Ex. P/9-A and Ex. P/10-A) were received. After further investigation, the respondents were prosecuted. However, on trial, the respondents were acquitted by the impugned judgment, which the complainant has assailed by the present revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the complainant submits that the judgment of acquittal has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice as the persons who have caused injuries in an open place have been let off with complete impunity. Learned Counsel further submits that the report of the incident was lodged immediately after the incident which clearly indicated that there being no time for embellishment, the stark facts of the case were placed before the investigating machinery. Under these circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the respondents.