SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 3. 4. 2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi (Rajasthan) (for short `the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 49/1998, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section for the offence under section 325 and 504 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 21. 8. 1994 complainant Ishwar submitted a report to this effect that today near about 9. 30 AM he went to Dhanmandi building to his father. Then his father told that Radhey Shyam upon not sending younger wife Pinki, left this place after causing unparliamentary language. When he stated about this fact, then he came with stick and fell down on the land. The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR for the offence under Sections 307, 325 and 504 IPC. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused respondent. The charge for the offence under sections 325 and 504 IPC was read over to the accused respondent on 7. 10. 1996, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 3. 4. 2000 acquitted the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3. 4. 2000 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent without considering the material available on record. Lastly, he has submitted that learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has failed to consider the statements of PW3 Ishwar, PW. 5 Kaushalya, PW 6 Nathu Lal, PW. 7 Narayan Dixit and PW. 9 Dr. O. P. Sharma. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3. 4. 2000 passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. ;