Balveer vs State, Through P.p. And Ors

The instant appeal under Section 378 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-complainant Balveer for assailing the judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.20/2015 (CIS No.155/2015) (State Vs. Indraj & Ors.) whereby, while convicting the co-accused Indraj for the charge under Section 307 I.P.C., the respondents No.2 and 3 viz. Prakash and Rukma were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. The appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal seeking to assail the aforesaid judgment.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel Shri N.L.Joshi and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.

Manifestly, the incident took place over a dispute pertaining to the boundary wall of the field between the complainant party and the accused party. As per the prosecution case, the accused party were making an attempt to remove the marks of demarcation between field when the fight erupted. As per the highest case as set up in the evidence of the injured Balveer P.W.1 complainant (appellant herein), Indraj was armed with an axe and he gave blows thereof on the head of the complainant. The acquitted accused were allegedly armed with lathis.

On a perusal of the medical evidence as deposed by Dr. Jitendra Bogiya P.W.9, it is clear that Balveer was having three incised wounds on his head. The fourth injury was a bruise admeasuring 8cmX3cm on his back. The said injury was attributed by Balveer to Rukma. Apparently, as the incident arose out of a boundary wall dispute, we are of the firm opinion that the learned trial court was absolutely justified in sifting the chaff from the grains and acquitting the respondents No.2 and 3 of the charges. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to that extent.

Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment in this victim's appeal against acquittal, which is dismissed as being devoid of merit.