IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE,

BARNALA

Ganga Ram son of Seeta Ram resident of Slums Near Sabji Mandi (Grain/
Vegetable-Market), Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala;

Complainant/ Appellant

Versus

1. Vijay Kumar son of Bhagwan Dass,

2. Rajni wife of Bhagwan Dass residents of Slums Near Sabji Mandi,

Barnala,

3. Neena wife of Shamu resident of Nava Shehar, now daughter of Raju

Singh resident of Slums Near Sabji Mandi, Barnala,

4. Pammi Singh @ Pindi son of Babu Singh,

5. Mumtaj wife of Major Singh, both residents of Slums Bagha Purana

Road, Near Gaushala, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

……Accused/ Respondents

6. State ….Performa-Respondent

Appeal against the judgement dated: 15.12.2021 passed by

Sh. Vineet Kumar Narang, PCS Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Barnala in Challan No.CHI/21/2019, CNR

No.PBBR03-000137-2019, decided on 15.12.2021 based upon

FIR No.367 dated: 08.11.2017, under Section: 379, 354, 323,

149 IPC, Police Station: City Barnala, by virtue of which the

 accused/ respondent was acquitted of the charge under

Section 379, 354, 323, 149 IPC.

CLAIM IN APPEAL

The setting-aside of the impugned judgement of acquittal

under Section 379, 354, 323, 149 IPC and for convicting and
sentencing the accused/ respondent under Section 379, 354,
323, 149 IPC.

RESPECTED SIR,

The grounds/ memorandum of appeal is presented as follow:-

1. That the judgment under appeal was passed on 15.12.2021.

The certified copy of the same was applied on 04.01.2022 and same was
prepared on 06.01.2022 and was delivered on 11.01.2022. As per the
Judgment dated: 08.03.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020, whereby the Hon'ble Apex
Court of India extended the limitation, the present appeal being preferred
before this Hon'ble Court is within limitation. The certified copy is
appended herewith for ready reference.

2. That the impugned judgment is unsustainable under the law on

the following grounds:-

i. Without any appreciation of the law while deciding about the

acquittal of accused/ respondent under Section 379, 354, 323,
149 IPC. The Subordinate Court has not appreciated the
evidence of the complainant in a legal way and acquitted the
accused/ respondent against law and as such, the impugned
judgment of acquittal under Section 379, 354, 323, 149 IPC is
liable to be set-aside.
 ii. The observation of the Subordinate Court that the evidence led
by prosecution cannot be said to be sufficient enough to hold
the accused guilty, is devoid of legal merit.

iii. From the entire circumstances and facts as have been come

on surface in the evidence clearly and conclusively prove that

the accused/ respondents No.1 to 5 committed the offence

under Sections 379, 354, 323, 149 IPC.

3. That as per the grounds mentioned in the preceding

paragraphs, the impugned judgment is legally liable to be set-aside as

regards the acquittal of accused/ respondents No.1 to 5 under Section 379,

354, 323, 149 IPC.

4. That the acquittal of accused/ respondents No.1 to 5 under

Section: 379, 354, 323, 149 IPC is totally inadequate and illegal. In such like

offences, the sentence of imprisonment is legally bound to be awarded to

accused/ respondents o.1 to 5. Injustice has been delivered to the

complainant by acquitting accused/ respondents No.1 to 5.

5. That by submitting the grounds/ memorandum of appeal, it is

very humbly submitted that impugned judgment of acquittal under Section

379, 354, 323, 149 IPC, may kindly be set-aside and accused/ respondent

No.1 to 5 may kindly be punished/ convicted under Section 379, 354, 323,

149 IPC by way of acceptance of this appeal. Dated:

Submitted by:
Ganga Ram son of Seeta Ram resident of Slums Near Sabji
Mandi (Grain/ Vegetable-Market), Barnala, Tehsil and District
Barnala;
Complainant/ Appellant
THROUGH:
MR. PARDEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT/ APPELLANT