Lal Bahadur Vs. State

Lal Bahadur vs State

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Jul 13, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701508

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/701508
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 13, 2005
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition 583/2000
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 452, 325 and 323 -- Allegation that accused person trespassed into the premises and assaulted and caused injury to the victims claiming the ownership of premises -- No documentary evidence on record to show that the accused person was the owner -- Injuries on the person of victi...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 360; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 452

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lal Bahadur

Advocate Nem

Respondent

State

Advocate Anil Soni, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 360; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 452
Reported In: 121(2005)DLT545; 2005(84)DRJ581

Excerpt

penal code, 1860 - sections 147, 148, 452, 325 and 323 -- allegation that accused person trespassed into the premises and assaulted and caused injury to the victims claiming the ownership of premises -- no documentary evidence on record to show that the accused person was the owner -- injuries on the person of victim also proved -- identity of accused persons also proved on record -- order of conviction affirmed. - - 5,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court......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, hockey's 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.....

Full 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, hockey's 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, thereforee, 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.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Lal Bahadur vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 360; ;Indian Pen...

Criminal