ARUN MADAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
(2.) THIS is a case in which the accused was convicted of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to two years, Simple Imprisonment by the trial court with a fine of Rs. 200/ -. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, an appeal was preferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Alwar) and the said Appellate Court vide order dated 26.2.1997, the said appellate court reversed the order of conviction passed against the accused Chagan Singh by the trial court and acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. I have perused both, the order of acquittal as well as the order of conviction. Prima -facie, I am of the view that there have to be very strong and cogent reasons for disturbing the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court and the law is so well settled that if there is one judgment of acquittal while another of conviction. It is primarily duty of the State to prefer an appeal and in the instant case no such appeal was preferred by the State against the order of acquittal by the appellate court. From the perusal of the order of the appellate court it is clear that specific findings have been recorded in paras 19 and 20 of the said order wherein the appellate court has specifically observed that from the nature of the injuries suffered by the complainant it is difficult to assign any positive role to the accused. Out of the two accused who had participated namely, Magan Singh and Chhagan Singh, Magan Singh was given the benefit of probation and released by the trial court. While accused Chhagan Singh was convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order it is further apparent that the material witnesses were not examined by the trial court and it is for this reason that the appellant court has reversed the findings of the trial court giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.;