JUDGEMENT
ARUN KUMAR GOAL,J. -
(1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records of this case.
(2.)State has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4) Shimla, dated 9 -4 -1990. By means of impugned judgment, respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 325 and 323, I.P.C. in case No. 28 -2 of 1987.
(3.)Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General urged in support of the appeal that the trial court has fallen into error by considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R. as fatal as well as by talking minor omissions/discrepancies in the statements of PWs 1 to 3 and 6. According to Shri M.L. Chauhan the so called omissions/contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were of such a character which did not require throwing out the case of the prosecution. Similarly, on the matter relating to delay on which the complaint has been dismissed, it was urged by Shri M.L. Chauhan that delay has been sufficiently explained in the present case and in no case it can be made a ground for rejection of the entire case of the prosecution. These submissions prima facie appear to be quite attractive but when tested with reference to the evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the respondent by the learned counsel, appear to have been raised simply to be rejected.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.