Lal Bahadur vs State [Along With Criminal ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1001 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. These revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 21st November, 2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the conviction of the petitioners but given them the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released them on probation for a period of one-and-a-half years on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

2. The matter has been pending in this court for a long time and has come up for hearing today. It has been shown on the regular board repeatedly and when called out no one cared to assist the court on behalf of the petitioner to dispose of the petition. This trend of not appearing in regular matters is causing grave concern and is primarily responsible for building up backlog and delay in decision of cases. The matter has been discussed in open court. Counsel have been requested time and again in the court to help dispose of cases but the same has evoked little response.

3. It is for the petitioner/s to ensure that counsel is present in the Court to represent them. Since these petitions have been shown on the list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further delay. In this view of the matter, I propose to deal with these petitions on merits with the assistance of counsel for the State and upon perusal of the record of the case filed in this court.

4. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:-

"Briefly stated the prosecution case is that property No.736/2, Jheel Khurenja, Krishna Nagar is the ancestral house of the complainant Smt.Harbai. The appellant Phool Singh started asserting his right over this property. On 21-11-90 at about 10.30 a.m. Appellant Phool Singh accompanied by his five sons and the other appellants trespassed into the house of the complainant and started pelting stones and bottles. They were armed with dandas, hockeys and lathis. They started beating the complainant and her family members. They drove away her buffaloes from the premises and tied their own buffaloes in their place. They also started doing some masonary work on the premises. In the attack Hiral Lal, jeth of the complainant, and Smt.Shakuntla and Smt. Oma sustained injuries. The complainant informed the police control room at No.100. She also sent Lekhraj, son of her jeth, to the police station.

The police arrived at the spot. They arrested Phool Singh and his sons Lal Bhadur & Ashok, Maan Singh (sala of Bahadur), Badle & Bhule (salas of Phool Singh), Lilu and Ramkishore. The rest fled away from the spot on seeing the police."

5. The petitioners were charged under Section 147, 148, 452 , 325, 323 read with Section 149 IPC. All the accused persons before the trial court were held guilty except Ram Kishore, who was acquitted on the ground that his identity could not be established.

6. The appellate court while dealing with the acquittal of Ram Kishore was of the opinion that PW-2, Shakuntala as also PW-5, Harwai have recognized Ram Kishore and his acquittal was not proper. However, since no appeal had been filed by the State the learned Judge chose to leave matters as they stood.

7. The other accused persons who sought acquittal on parity with the case of Ram Kishore were not afforded the benefit. The appellate court, however, discussed the evidence on record and returned a finding that the judgment of conviction of the trial court was in order and needed no interference with.

8. I have carefully gone through the statement of witnesses, in particular, PW-2, Smt.Shakuntala and PW-5, Smt.Harwai, as also gone through the judgment of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 31st March, 1997 and am of the opinion that the judgment under challenge suffers from no infirmity. There is nothing on record to show that Phool Singh is the owner of the property No.736/2, Jheel Khurenja. No document has been placed on record to establish the ownership and possession of the property in dispute by Phool Singh. The prosecution's case stands proved by the statement of PW-2, Smt.Shakuntala and PW-5, Smt.Harwai. The injuries stand proved. All the petitioners have been identified as assailants and, therefore, the accused can claim no benefit.

Having carefully reappraised the material on record, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court.

Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 583/2000 and 88/1001 are dismissed.