- (1.) State of Punjab has filed this application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated April 9, 2011, acquitting respondents No. 1 to 7 of the charges framed against them. It was allegation against the respondents that on August 25, 2007, in the morning, after trespassing in the house of the complainant, namely, Amarjit alias Amba, they had caused injuries to the complainant, his uncle Swarna, Narinder Pal, Darshan Ram, Satpal etc.
(2.) The process of law was started on a statement Ex. PA made by Amarjit alias Amba to SI Sukhdev Singh (PW13), on the basis of which FIR No. 97 dated August 25, 2007, (Ex. PW13/B) was recorded against the respondents. The Investigating Officer arrested some of the respondents. He also got prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence. The complainant Amarjit and other persons named above, were also admitted in the Hospital at Phillaur and were medico legally examined by Dr. Arvind Singh (PW10), who found one injury on the person of Narinder Pal, one injury on the person of Amarjit, complainant, six injuries on the person of Satpal and nine injuries on the person of Swaran Chand. Dr. Yashpal (PW11) conducted X-Ray on Narinder Pal and found fracture in the skull. It was deposed by Dr. Ashok Gupta (PW14) that Darshan Ram was admitted in the PGI on November 5, 2007. Surgical operation was conducted upon him on account of facial nerve paralysis of the left side.
(3.) The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation filed the final report in Court for trial. The case was committed to the competent Court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied , claimed innocence and false implication. Respondent No. 2 Soni and respondent No. 3 Amarjit took up a stand that on August 25, 2007, the complainant party came in front of house of Jit Ram, fully armed with deadly weapons. Their house is situated in front of the house of above Jit Ram. The complainant party broke open the doors of their house, dragged them outside and caused injuries to them. In self-defence, they had caused injuries to the members of the complainant party. It was denied that they had gone to the house of the complainant party. The complainant party had come to take possession of the disputed plot, which was in their possession for the last 30 years. Hari Ram and Balwinder, respondents No. 6 and 7 respectively, took up defence of alibi stating that they were not present in the village on August 25, 2007. Balbir , respondent No. 1, has also supported the defence taken by the respondents No. 2 and 3. He has further stated that when injuries were caused to respondents No. 2 and 3, he went away from the spot to save his life. Respondents No. 4 and 5 Raj Kumari and Phinki respectively has also taken up the similar stand.;