IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-191-MA of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 31.03.2010 State of Haryana .... APPELLANT Versus Jagir Singh ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Gauripuria, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the appellant-State. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7.9.2009, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the accused (respondent herein) has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 307 IPC. However, he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 323/452/506 IPC and vide order dated 8.9.2009, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 323 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 452 IPC, in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months under Section 452 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. However, the Registry has not reported regarding the filing of any appeal by the respondent against the judgment of his conviction and the order of Crl. Misc. No. A-191-MA of 2010 -2- sentence. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the impugned judgment. In the present case, the prosecution was launched against the respondent on the basis of the statement made by Parveen Kumar complainant (PW.3) after one day of the occurrence, to the effect that on 8.12.2008, injured Sat Narain was accompanying him towards Sanjay Chowk, Panipat. When they reached near Khanna Factory, Mahabir Chowk, Devinder and the respondent were found standing there. Then Sat Narain enquired from Devinder as to why he was in the company of the respondent, who was a thief. Thereupon, the respondent gave a brick blow on the head of Sat Narain. Then the respondent threw down Sat Narain upon a heap of bricks twice or thrice. When he (complainant) tried to save Sat Narain, the respondent gave fist blows and slaps to him and ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he (complainant) took Sat Narain to his house, where again the respondent came and gave brick blow on the right foot of Sharbati wife of Sat Narain. Thereafter, the respondent fled away from the spot after threatening the complainant and Sharbati with dire consequences. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.3 Parveen (complainant) and PW.5 Sharbati as well as PW.4 Dr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Neuro Surgeon, Prem Hospital, Panipat. Injured Sat Narain, who was the victim, was not examined by the prosecution without any reason and justification. Even Dr. Sanjay Aggarwal (PW.4) had not stated that the injuries caused to Sat Narain were grievous in nature. Crl. Misc. No. A-191-MA of 2010 -3- The trial court, after recording the finding that there was nothing on record which suggests that the respondent caused injuries to Sat Narain with intention to commit his murder and there was no previous enmity between them. In view of the said findings, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC against the respondent and he was acquitted of the said offence. However, for causing injuries to Sat Narain and trespassing into his house, the respondent was convicted and sentenced under Sections 323/452/506 IPC, as indicated above. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the impugned judgment, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the trial court, while acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 307 IPC. In our opinion, the instant case is not a fit case, where the leave to appeal is to be granted to the State. However, it is made clear that in this case, we have examined the impugned judgment only with regard to the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, any observation made in this order shall not effect the decision of the appeal, if filed subsequently by the respondent against his conviction and sentence for the other offences. Application is, accordingly, dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 31, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ndj JUDGE