Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present leave to appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge framed under Sections 452 and 323 IPC against them.

2. Summarily, the facts of the case are that the accused-respondent No.1 who is son of brother-in-law of father of Bahadur Singh forcibly put some luggage in one room of the house where the complainant-appellant, along with her children and servant were residing. The allegations against the accused-respondents are of trespassing into her bedroom and inflicting injuries to her. She filed a criminal complaint on 21.03.2011. The accused-respondents got an FIR bearing No.60 dated 12.03.2011 registered under Sections 323 /341/506/427/34 IPC PS Sadar, Jalandhar with allegations that the complainant and her daughter had broken open the door of the room belonging to accused-respondent No.1 on 11.03.2011.

3. The trial Court on the basis of preliminary evidence summoned the accused-respondents and as per the pre-charge evidence adduced by the complainant, charged them under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC and after having meticulously examined the evidence as led by the parties, acquitted the accused-respondents vide judgment dated 21.09.2017.

4. Hence, the present leave to appeal.

5. It would be worthwhile to make a reference to the impugned judgment passed by the lower Court, which reads thus:

“20. Onus to prove this point was upon the complainant. Complainant alleged that on 11.03.2011 accused Narinder Singh and Rajni Kaur inflicted injuries on her person with weapons. Although, CW-1. CW-3 and CW-4 in their examination in chief consistently deposed about the factum of accused entering into their house with armed weapon and there upon inflicting injuries on the person of complainant. However, there are material discrepancies in the said testimonies of CW-1 to CW-5 about the number of injuries received by the complainant, about their arrival and departure time at the hospital and about the number of persons taking complainant to hospital. Complainant in her testimony as CW-1 deposed that she has received in total two injuries in the alleged occurrence at 05:30 PM on 11.03.2011 and thereafter she reached the hospital at about 06-06:30 PM, which was at a distance of 30 minutes from their house. Whereas, CW-4 Gurvinder Singh deposed that they have remained in the hospital for about 30 to 60 minutes. Whereas, copy of MLR placed on record as Ex.CW5/1 revealed that complainant was medico legally examined at 05:50 PM. It is highly improbable that a person who has received injuries at 05:30 PM by the accused was taken to the hospital in a car, which is at a distance of 30 minutes, as per the averments of the complainant and there upon she was examined by the doctor at 05:50 PM only i.e. after a gap of merely 10 minutes.

xxx xxx xxx

22. In view of above discussion, the court arrives at conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove her case against the accused under Section 452 and 323 of the IPC. Accordingly, accused Narinder Singh and Rajni Kaur stands acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 452 and 323 of the IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused are kept intact for another six months, in compliance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., in order to ensure the presence of the accused in the appeal or revisionary court, as the case may be, in case, any appeal or revision is preferred by the complainant. File be consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.”

6. Learned