Ashok Kumar v. Om Pal & Ors.

Present: Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Complainant Ashok Kumar filed a complaint Sections 323, 324, 341, 452, 506, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short) against the respondents. Vide impugned judgment dated 8.9.2009 passed by the learned trial Court respondents No.4 and 5 were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 506 IPC. However, respondents No. 1 to 3 were held guilty only under Sections 323 and 506 and they were ordered to be released on probation. The complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal CRMA No. 8-MA of 2010 (O&M) 2 against the order mentioned above. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos.2 to 5 of its judgment, reads thus:- “2. That Ram Kumar father of complainant filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Om Pal in respect of one room situated on the first floor of house No.1108, which is pending and due to which Om Pal was having inimical terms with his family members. Accused No.4 and 5 being close relatives of Om Pal are residing near his house.

3. That premises bearing No.1108 is consisting of two rooms. One room exists on the ground floor and another room exists on the first floor and in front of room of ground floor, there exists the entering gate and then Dahlij and thereafter, there exists stairs case which leads to first floor. The first floor is in possession of Om Pal as tenant, whereas, ground floor along with dehlij is in possession of his father Ram Kumar. Some goods like chairs etc. are lying in the room situated in the ground floor. 4 That on 28.7.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. complainant went to take some goods from the room which is situated on the ground floor, then accused CRMA No. 8-MA of 2010 (O&M) 3 No.1 to 3 came there and started abusing him in filthy language and asked him why his father has filed ejectment petition and also threatened him to withdraw the case, failing which they will kill them. Accused No.2 and 3 caught hold of him, whereas, accused No.1 ran towards his room and came with khoncha in his hand. Accused No.2 and 3 gave slaps on his face, whereas, accused No.1 gave khoncha blow on his head, due to which blood started from his head. Accused No.4 and 5 also assaulted him. Om Pal also threatened to kill him. Hearing his noise, his elder brother Shiv Kumar and one Vishnu Garg son of Balbir Parshad, who was passing through the street also reached at the spot and witnessed the incident. They also rescued him from the clutches of accused, but while leaving the spot accused also threatened to kill him.

5. That complainant immediately was taken to Civil Hospital, Jagadhari where he was medico-legally examined. He remained admitted there for two days. He reported the matter to police and police obtained his signatures on written papers, without telling the contents thereof, but no action was taken, hence, this complaint.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of CRMA No. 8-MA of 2010 (O&M) 4 the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, respondents Om Pal, Neeta and Deepa have been convicted for an offence under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. The other accused Naresh Kumar and Rishu were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Learned trial Court, in the impugned judgment, has observed that it was proved on record that Naresh Kumar and Rishu accused had reached the spot after the injuries had been inflicted by accused Neeta and Deepa and accused No.1 Om Pal had inflicted injury with his weapon. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly held that accused Naresh Kumar and Rishu were liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against them. So far as accused Neeta and Deepa are concerned they had allegedly inflicted fist and kick blows on the person of the complainant. So far as accused Om Pal is concerned, he gave khoncha blow on the person of the complainant. Parties are closely related to each other. Om Pal is maternal uncle of the complainant and was living in one room of the complainant as a tenant. The room on the ground floor was occupied by the complainant's father. The ocular version was corroborated by medical evidence. Learned trial Court had, thus, rightly convicted respondents Om Pal, Neeta and Deepa under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Learned trial Court, while considering the quantum of sentence , has observed as under:- CRMA No. 8-MA of 2010 (O&M) 5 “4. accused Deepa having two small children in her lap, whereas her mother Neeta appear to be very weak and feeble, accused are labourer, illiterate and on enquiry complainant has admitted that room has been vacated by Om Pal under the compromise and that during this period, no such incident had taken place again. So, keeping in view the age, physical condition of both the lady accused and their antecedents during trial as well as they are close relation between the parties, it would be appropriate to release them by granting a benefit of probation of good conduct.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court rightly held that it was a fit case for releasing accused Om Pal, Neeta and Deepa on probation. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. March 04, 2010 (SABINA) JUDGE