IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

230 Date of decision: 23.04.2026 Kapil and another ...Appellant(s)

VERSUS Inderjit and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Ms. Roja Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant(s)

(Legal Aid Counsel).

Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, acquitting the appellants-accused, was allowed and the appellants were convicted for commission of offence under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and ordered to be released on probation.

2. As there was no representation on behalf of the appellants, Ms. Roja Agnihotri, Advocate, was appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel to assist this Court on behalf of the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.1 Inderjit Singh, wherein he had stated that he is the owner of a Bara. His elder brother Jagdish @ Kali had also made a Bara by putting earth in the Johar His brother started putting garbage dumps on his Bara. On 05.06.2005, when he was working in his Bara at about 9:30 A.M., his nephew Kapil called his father, Jagdish @ Kali, at the Bara. His brother then snatched the Kassi from the labourer, and when he was asked to return it, he gave a blow of an inverted Kassi on the complainant’s shoulder. He caught hold of his brother’s hands, and thereafter, his nephew Kapil gave a blow of an inverted Kassi on his head. He raised a hue and cry, on hearing which Ashwani Kumar and his father reached at the spot and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, both the accused fled away from the spot. The complainant was then shifted to the hospital, and accordingly, FIR No.160 dated 05.06.2005, was registered under Sections 323, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Butana, Karnal.

4. On completion of the investigation, challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court against the accused, and the parties led their respective evidence.

5. Eventually, the trial Court concluded that, despite affording an opportunity, the prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellants-accused herein were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The operative part of the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, reads thus:-

“13. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned APP for the State as well as learned defence counsel and after perusing the case file carefully, this Court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused. PW2 is a formal witness who proved the MLR Ex. PW2/1 whereby he proved the injuries sustained by the complainant. PW4 is the alleged recovery witness failed to remember any material particulars regarding the place, time and manner of alleged recovery during his cross-examination as such much reliance cannot be placed on his testimony either. The case of the prosecution rests principally on the testimony of the complainant examined PW1, Investigating Officer examined as PW3 and the alleged eye witness PW5. However, there are material contradictions in the versions of these witnesses and there are material lacuna in the case of the prosecution. While the complainant and the eye witness maintain that their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer in the hospital, whereas the Investigating Officer claims that he recorded the statement of eye witnesses Ashwani and father of the complainant Dariyai Lal at the spot. The Investigating Officer says that the place where the incident took place was owned by th