- (1.)This criminal revision, filed by the petitioner, namely, Hardit Singh on whose complaint, FIR No. 42/2006 for offences under Sec. 451/323/34 RPC claimed to have been registered in the Police Station, Miran Sahib, is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest), Jammu ['trial Court'] in file No. 147/Challan titled 'State vs. Jagmohan Singh and ors'.
(2.)Before adverting to the grounds of challenge pleaded in this revision petition, it is apt to briefly notice the prosecution story as projected in the charge-sheet presented before the trial Court on 28/12/2006 against the private respondents herein: As per the prosecution, on 14/10/2006 one Jaswant Kour (complainant) along with her son Ajit Singh came to the Police Station and submitted a written application stating therein that the private respondents herein were her neighbours and that on the said day in the morning when she was sweeping the drain in front of her house, the private respondents with criminal intention started abusing her. She objected and asked them not to abuse her and her other family members. All the private respondents entered her house and with criminal intention attacked her and her husband with a 'kai' and stones and inflicted injuries to her. On raising hue and cry, few persons gathered on spot and saved her from the clutches of the respondents. Upon this information, FIR No. 42/2006 for the offences under Ss. 452/323/34 RPC came to be registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was presented by the Investigating Officer before the trial Court.
(3.)With a view to prove its case, the prosecution produced and examined only one witness i.e the complainant Jaswant Kour. In spite of opportunities granted by the trial Court to the prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses, it did not produce any witness. Thereafter, an application under Sec. 540 CrPC for summoning of witnesses filed by the prosecution was allowed by the trial Court, but still the prosecution could not produce any more witness, as such, right of the prosecution to lead evidence was closed and the statements of respondents under Sec. 342 CrPC were recorded. Incriminating evidence was put to the respondents and in response thereto, they stated that wrong statement had been made by the complainant against them as she was inimical to them and that they had been falsely implicated in the case. It was submitted by the respondents that since they had tried to stop the complainant from cutting the tree from their land, as such, she concocted a false case and lodged FIR against them.