- (1.) The instant application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), has been filed by the complainant, for leave to file appeal against the judgement of acquittal dated 30.8.2011, whereby respondents no.2 to 4 were acquitted of the charge framed against them.
(2.) The applicant-complainant sought to set the criminal law into motion by registration of FIR No.93 dated 15.7.2006 levelling allegations against respondents no.2 to 4 that they caused grievous injuries to him. However, the investigating agency did not find sufficient evidence, during the investigation. Feeling aggrieved against the action of the prosecuting agency, applicant moved a complaint on 24.10.2006 and the accused were summoned by the Illaqa Magistrate. To avoid repetition and also for the sake of brevity, it is appropriate to refer to the facts noted by the learned trial court in para 1 of the impugned judgement and the same read, as under :- " By way of commitment proceedings accused Raghbir Singh, Kartar and Neeta were sent for trial on the allegations that complainant is an agriculturist and is having about 8.1/2 acres of land and besides this, he was taking agricultural land of adjoining area on contract basis. At present,he was cultivating the land of Mohinder Singh Khuhiwala and before him Raghbir Singh was cultivating that land and as such accused were having grudge against him. Complainant was also having some dispute with said Raghbir Singh with regard to boundary of fields and as such they were not having good terms. On the intervening night of 12/13.7.2006 at about 1.30 A.M., when the power for electric motor was supplied, he alongwith his son went to his fields for starting electric motor. When he reached near the room of electric motor and his son was parking the scooter, in the meantime, three persons with muffled faces came there, who were armed with kirpan and Datters attacked them. He identified all those three persons in the light of bulb which was on at the outer side of room of electric motor. His son also identified them. Raghbir Singh is his cousin brother and Kartar accused is resident of his village and third accused Neeta is known to Raghbir Singh and he is on visiting terms with Raghbir Singh. Accused started beating them. First kirpan blow hit him on his head and on the upper side of forehead and second blow of kirpan hit him on the left eye brow. Third blow of kirpan hit him on the right hand side of his forehead. Fourth blow from sharpen side of kirpan hit him on the upper lip. Fifth blow of Datter from sharp edged side hit him near the left ear. Thereafter two blows with Datter hit him on the jaw and cheek. Complainant further stated that the accused tried to kill him. He called his son but out of fear he did not come forward and he saw the whole occurrence. He raised alarm "Maar Ditta-Maar Ditta" and thereafter the accused ran away from the spot alongwith their weapons. After arranging vehicle, he was taken to civil hospital, Barapind, where he was medically examined and then referred to DMC, Ludhiana, where he remained admitted for about 25 days. After discharging from the hospital, he alongwith his son approached the police for lodging the report and FIR No.93 dated 15.7.2006 was got registered but the police did not pursue the case and tried to dispose of the matter by way of compromise, which could not be matured but the police did not take any action against the accused and hence the complainant filed this complaint on 24.10.2006. After recording preliminary evidence of complainant, learned Illaqa Magistrate has summoned the accused under section 307/326/323 read with section 34 of IPC."
(3.) In compliance of the summoning order, the accused appeared before the learned Illaqa Magistrate. Relevant documents were supplied to the accused, as per law. The offence alleged having been found to be exclusively triable by the learned court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned court of competent jurisdiction, vide order dated 5.8.2009. Having found a prima facie case, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326,324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, produced as many as five PWs, besides tendering the relevant documents in evidence. After closing the evidence by the prosecution, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused. Refuting all the allegations levelled against them, the accused claimed complete innocence. Opting to lead defence evidence, the accused examined two DWs, besides tendering the relevant documents in defence evidence.;