Full Judgment
(207) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.D-1057-DB of 2014 Date of decision: 5.8.2014 Manjit Singh ….
Appellant Versus State of Haryana and Others ….
Respondents Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
*** S.S.Saron, J.
The appeal has been filed by the complainant Manjit Singh against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar to the extent that respondent No.3 Suraj Bhan alias Saini has been acquitted.
Besides, for enhancing the sentence awarded to respondent No.2 Sandeep alias Vori.
The appellant Manjit Singh lodged the FIR alleging that he is brother of Daljit Singh injured.
They were four brotheRs.Jagjit Singh was the eldest; younger to him was Daljit Singh (injured) followed by Paramjit Singh and the complainant Manjit Singh was the youngest.
During the life time of their mother, his father Randhir Singh had kept a lady namely Guddi with him as his wife along with his son Sandeep alias Vori (respondent No.2).On 29.7.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant and his brother Daljit Singh (injured) were talking to each other in the street near AMIT KHANCHI201408.07 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh CRA No.D-1057-DB of 2014 [2].their house.
At that time, a motor-cycle passed by their side which was being driven by one boy while Sandeep alias Vori (respondent No.2) was riding pillion.
After crossing them, the motor-cyclists went away and then turned back from Kharkari side.
In the meanwhile, Randhir and Guddi also came from the other side.
Randhir was carrying a gun while Guddi was carrying a ‘gandasi’.
Randhir fired a shot from his gun towards Daljit Singh which did not hit anybody.
On hearing the noise of gunshot, Sandeep alias Vori (respondent No.2) and the other boy came back on their motor- cycle.
Sandeep alias Vori (respondent No.2) was armed with a revolver.
He came near them and started firing at them.
Two shots hit on the back and one on the finger of the left hand of Daljit Singh.
Thereafter, they raised a noise upon which their elder brother namely Jagjit also reached at the spot.
On seeing him, Sandeep alias Vori (respondent No.2) along with the pistol and his companion ran away on the motor cycle towards the village.
Randhir and Guddi also ran away from the spot with their respective weapons.
He further alleged that their cousin Sunita owned some land and Sandeep alias Vori (Respondent No.2) wanted it to be transferred in his name.
However, he suspected that the complainant Manjit and his brothers were opposing the transfer which could be the motive of the assault.
On account of this grudge, Sandeep alias Vori (respondent No.2).Randhir, Guddi and one more boy in furtherance of their common intention had fired shots at him and his brother with an intention to kill them.
Thereafter, the complainant along with his brother Jagjit took Daljit in a car to CMC Hospital, Hisar where he was medically examined AMIT KHANCHI and admitted in the hospital for treatment.
2014.08.07 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh CRA No.D-1057-DB of 2014 [3].A perusal of the above allegations in the FIR shows that injured in the case is Daljit Singh who is the brother of the complainant.
The appeal has, however, been filed by the complainant Manjit Singh.
In terms of the proviso to Section 372 Cr PC, an appeal is maintainable at the behest of a ‘victim’ against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.
‘Victim’ has been defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr PC to mean a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression ‘victim’ includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
In the present case, Daljit Singh is the injured and therefore, he suffered the loss or the injury caused by the reason of the assault on him by Sandeep alias Vori (respondent No.2).Manjit Singh who though is the complainant in the present case cannot be said to be a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) Cr PC.
Therefore, the present appeal as against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar filed by Manjit Singh, complainant is not maintainable.
In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed being not maintainable.
(S.S.Saron) Judge (Lisa Gill) Judge 5.8.2014 amit AMIT KHANCHI201408.07 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh