SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment dated 22.06.2015 and order of conviction dated 23.06.2015 the appellant has preferred this appeal and prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction.
(2.) According to the appellant, learned Trial Court did not consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives. The Learned Court below failed to appreciate that there are enormous exaggeration and embellishment in the evidence, which are not in conformity with the F.I.R. If the evidence would have been correctly considered, in that case acquittal would be the only answer.
(3.) As against this learned Counsel on behalf of the state had contended that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and the learned Trial Court had considered all the material aspects in its proper perspectives. Espousing the finding of the learned Trial Court, the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction do not require any interference.;