Decided on June 27,2005

Rukhamani Bai Appellant
State Of C G Respondents


- (1.) THE applicant has preferred this criminal revision as he is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01-03-2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in criminal case No. 504/02 and by this judgment the non-applicants No. 2 to 7 have been acquitted from the charges under Section 147, 323 read with Section 34 and 354 of the IPC.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned Judgment of acquittal has been passed simply on the ground that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are close relatives and there is no independent eyewitness. Learned counsel submits that the version of the witnesses cannot be disbelieved simply on the ground that they are relatives and as such are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that though the applicant's version that her modesty was outraged by the accused persons was duly supported by the statements of other witnesses, even then they have been disbelieved for no cogent reasons. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the impugned of acquittal.
(3.) THE Court below has acquitted the accused persons on the following grounds; 1. that no independent witness has been examined and that all the witnesses are close relatives and as such are interested witnesses. 2. that there is material omission in their statements, which have been elaborately discussed by the Court below in the impugned judgment. 3. that the doctor who examined the complainant, has categorically stated that there were no injuries on the person of the complainant and the statement of the complainant is not duly corroborated by the doctor. 4. that there was some dispute between the parties with respect to irrigation in the fields. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.