The preliminary evidence is the foundation for framing charges, but not for a verdict of acquittal or conviction. The accused's failure to avail the statutory privilege does not benefit the complainant, who must adduce post-charge evidence to support the charges.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - CRM-19475-2015

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the present application seeking leave to appeal against the verdict of acquittal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, in respect of charges drawn under Sections 326/324/34 of IPC.

2. For good, and, valid reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed, and, the delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

CRM-A-978-MA-2015

1. The facts relevant for a decision of the instant application, are that, the complainant Harjinder Singh instituted a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur. In the said private complaint he alleged that offences constituted under Sections 324, 326, 34 of IPC, became committed by the thereins named accused.

2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 4.6.2009 at about 10 AM, when the complainant was present at his well, then Karnail Singh son of Mehanga Singh armed with Kirpan, Iqbal Singh son of Karnail Singh armed with Dattar and Gejo wife of Karnail Singh armed with Danda came for assaulting him. On theirs reaching there Iqbal Singh raised Lalkara that complainant has not to be spared, upon which Karnail Singh struck a kirpan blow on the complainant but the complainant raised his right hand in order to save himself, but the kirpan blow struck his right hand. Subsequently, Karnail Singh gave a Kirpan blow on his shoulder, thereafter Iqbal Singh struck two datar blows on the left shoulder and left muscles of the complainant, whereafter Gejo is alleged to deliver danda blows on the left hand of the complainant. The complainant raised raula to the effect 'Bachao-Bachao', 'Mar-ditta, Mar-ditta', and upon hearing the raula raised by the complainant, Dharampal son of Jagdish Chand resident of Mahal and Major Singh son of Nirmal Singh resident of Goraya, reached the spot, and then the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Subsequently the complainant was medically examined and x-rayed in the Hospital. The motive behind the occurrence, is stated to be, that a case with regard to the ancestral property is pending between complainant and Karnail Singh, and for the said reason the accused persons have caused injuries to the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant also got recorded a statement before the police, on 5.6.2009, on the basis of which F.I.R bearing No.70 dt. 5.6.2009 U/S 324/34 IPC was registered, and on x-report, an offence u/S 326 IPC was added. It is alleged that the police has not taken any action against the accused persons despite theirs repeatedly visiting the Police Station.

3. As preliminary evidence the complainant examined himself as CW1, Dr.Malkiat Singh as CW2, PHG Sham Lal as CW3, Major Singh as CW4, Dharampal as CW5, and Dr. Kuljasbir Singh as CW6, and thereafter the complainant closed his preliminary evidence.

4. After considering the preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant, all the accused were vide order dated 17.08.2013 ordered to be summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 324/326 read with section 34 of the IPC.

5. After hearing both the parties a prima facie case was made out against the accused for theirs committing offences Under Sections 326/324/34 IPC. Accordingly charge(s) were framed against the accused, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for adduction of post charge(s) evidence by the complainant.

6. The learned Magistrate concerned, upon, considering the fact that subsequent to the framing of charge(s) against the accused, and, despite an opportunity being granted to the complainant to adduce evidence thereons, yet rather no evidence becoming adduced by the complainant, therefore he proceeded to close the complainant's evidence. Moreover, the learned Magistrate concerned, in the operative portion of his impugned ve