CRM No. 741-MA of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. 741-MA of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.8.2010 Hawa Singh ....... Appellant Versus Amar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. **** SABINA, J. Respondents No.1 to 7 were tried for an offence under Sections 323/ 435/ 427/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, vide impugned judgment dated 5.8.2009, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwani acquitted respondents No.1 to 7 of the charge framed against them. The applicant-complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.1 of its judgment, reads thus:- “The present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that he resides at Bikaner CRM No. 741-MA of 2009 (O&M) 2 (Rajasthan) and has given his land to Hoshiar Singh for cultivation, who is his brother. It is further alleged that the accused persons also have their agricultural land adjoining the land belonging to the complainant and they destroyed the 'Dole' (partition) in between the land of both the parties and even destroyed the trees which were standing near the 'done (partition) and upon receipt of this information, he came to village on 19.8.1999 and saw the accused persons uprooting the trees and burning them with fire and when they were forbidden to do so, then the accused have gave him fist and slaps blows and hence, the action was prayed to be taken against the accused persons.” After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves dismissal. Learned trial Court, acquitted the accused- respondents No.1 to 7 as the complainant-appellant had failed to get himself medically examined. As per the complainant-appellant, accused, who were eight in number, had attached him. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly held that it was not believable that the appellant had not received even a single injury. Hence, the medical corroboration qua injuries inflicted by the accused was very essential. The appellant, in order to explain the delay in filing the complaint, stated that he had approached various CRM No. 741-MA of 2009 (O&M) 3 police officers qua the occurrence for registration of FIR but no action was taken on his application. However, the complainant failed to establish the said fact by leading any documentary evidence in this regard. On account of delay in filing of the complaint, the contradiction in the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 gained significance. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondents No.1 to 7, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence on record. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 09, 2010 anita