STATE OF H P Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against acquittal is directed against the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Amb, dated 27/02/1998.

(2.) It appears the case of prosecution was: A cultural programme named "Sidh Chano-ka Akhara" was organised in village Totar, in Tehsil Amb of District Una in the late evening of 30/01/1996. Nasib Chand complainant (PW. 1) was asked by the organizers to collect donations from the audience for the society, which had organized this programme. Om Parkash (A1), Narinder Kumar (A2) and Rajesh Kumar (A3), respondents herein, were present in the ground as spectators. When Nasib Chand was collecting donations. Om Parkash showed him a one-rupee note indicating that he would donate it for the Society. Complainant went to Om Parkash to take the money. Om Parkash asked him to announce name of four persons for one rupee currency note. Complainant refused to comply. Thereafter, three persons caught hold of him from his arms and took him towards backside. A1 Om Parkash pulled out a knife and tried to hit him on the stomach. Nasib Chand saved this blow on stomach by putting his hand on the stomach. In the process, he received injury on his right hand. Om Parkash, not content, caused two more stab injuries with a knife on the stomach of Nasib Chand. Nasib Chand raised alarm. The accused fled away. Waryam Singh, brother of the complainant and some other persons came to the spot. On the request of the complainant he was taken near the mike on the stage. Nasib Chand announced that he was attacked with knife by Om Parkash (A1) and others. He later on was taken to the hospital. After first aid, Nasib Chand was referred to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh for further treatment.

(3.) All the three accused were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All three of them have been acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate. So far Narinder Kumar (A2) is concerned, complainant in his evidence is categorical that he had not seen Narinder Kumar on the spot. So far Rajesh Kumar (A3) is concerned, it was the evidence of the complainant-injured that he did not know Rajesh Kumar by name. He however, maintained that Rajesh Kumar was one of the persons who caught hold of him from the arm.