- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the State against judgment and order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 8, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1997 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 307/34 and 323/34 IPC. We have gone through the judgment of the court below; injury received on the person of Ram Prasad Pandey and finding arrived at by the court below while acquitting the respondents.
(3.) IT is argued that it is a case where one Ram Prasad Pandey was fired upon by Arun Kumar from the gun; Ram Prasad received three injuries, which are circular in nature, but judgment of acquittal is based on two grounds; firstly injuries received on the person of Ram Prasad Pandey seem to have not been caused by the gun since there is no blackening and tattooing although specific case of the prosecution is that shot was fired from a distance of 25 -30 steps away, as such, there is no question of blackening and tattooing to have been received in the injuries and secondly the doctor has not opined that the injuries received on the person of injured were caused by firearm. This finding arrived at by the court below for acquitting the respondents on the face it is perverse and against the evidence on record.;