- (1.) Respondents No. 2 to 16 had faced trial in FIR No. 52 dated 17.3.2011 under Section 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Chandimandir. Trial Court vide order dated 2.5.104, ordered the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 16 of the charges framed against them. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the Sarpanch and big land owners of the village used to distribute amongst themselves the amount earned by auctioning sarkanda grown on shamlat land instead of utilizing the same for the development purposes and for the benefit of the villagers. In this regard, complainant party had assembled at the office of CPM, Barwala. At about 2.45 P.M., accused Jitender, Binda, Neetu, Golu, Bheema, Jatinder son of Parkash, Ran Singh and many other persons belonging to Rajput community, came there and started abusing the complainant party. Jitender gave an injury on the head of Suresh Pal whereas Binda gave an injury on the right leg of the complainant. Neetu gave a lathi blow on the belly of the complainant whereas accused Golu and others gave fist blows on the head and back of Joinger. Accused Mahi Pal and Binda gave injuries to Satpal on his right leg and back. Accused Bheema and Jatinder gave fist blows to Satpal. The other accused assaulted the members of the complainant party.
(3.) The Trial Court, after going through the evidence on record, held that the bone of contention between the parties was qua misappropriation of the sale proceeds of sarkanda from shamlat land. However, original application moved by the complainant party to the Deputy Commissioner, in this regard, was not proved on record. Complaint Ex. PA, produced on record, did not have any dispatch number of the office. The caste certificates of the prosecution witnesses were not proved on record. The learned Trial Court has further noticed that as per the prosecution witnesses, many persons had gathered at the spot and had addressed the complainant party as "chudhe chamar". However, there was no material on record that the said words had been uttered by the accused facing trial. Further, learned Trial Court has held that it was not established on record that the occurrence had taken place inside the CPM office. The version given by the prosecution witnesses qua place of occurrence, was different. The learned Trial Court has further noticed that PW-15 Inspector Jangsher Singh had admitted that during the scuffle between the parties, accused Ravinder and Bhim Singh had also suffered injuries and medico legal reports of the said accused were on record. PW-17 Badri Parshad had admitted that the accused had also moved an application for taking action against the complainant party. The injuries on the person of the accused had remained unexplained. The medico legal reports of the victims were not proved on record but even if the same were taken in consideration, the victims had suffered simple injuries. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a case of free fight where two factions had quarreled with each other and both the sides had suffered injuries. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that respondents No. 2 to 16 were liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court.;