AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The defects have not been cured as per the report of
the Registry.
The appellant in terms of the law laid by the Supreme
Court has not preferred any application for grant of leave to
appeal.
De hors of the defects pointed out by the Registry, at
this juncture, the present appeal is treated as an application for
leave to appeal.
The trial court noted that the investigating agency
came to conclusion that accused respondent no.2 was not involved
in the occurrence. The trial court further noted that the accused
respondent no.2 was summoned by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The trial court taking into account the evidence of Yashpal Singh
(P.W.1) and Kuldeep Singh (P.W.3) further came to the conclusion
that it is case of free fight and each accused is responsible for his
own act. Thus, to the trial court it was case of individual liability.
Having given finding of free fight, the trial court rightly held that
Sections 147 and 148 IPC are not attracted. The trial court further
noted that Kuldeep Singh (P.W.3) though before the trial court
stated that accused respondent no.2 caused him lathi injury but
he has not specified seat of injury. The trial court noted that Dr.
Amar Singh Meena (P.W.7) in court deposed that Yashpal Singh
had suffered three injuries out of which two were caused with
incised weapon and one with blunt weapon. The trial court further
noted that not only Joga Singh, but injury with blunt weapon is
also attributed to Trilok Singh. The trial Judge after appreciation of
evidence recorded acquittal of accused respondent no.2.
The view formulated by the trial Judge cannot be
termed as perverse, rather this is one view which is possible on
the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, for not filing
application for leave to appeal and not curing defects, as well as
on merit, the present appeal along with application for leave to
appeal for which oral prayer is made, are dismissed.