- (1.) Heard Mr. Nand Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Kamlesh Yadav (informant), Mr. D.K. Chakrabarti, appearing for the State and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and perused the lower Court records.
(2.) These appeals arise from the judgment of acquittal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that it is true that in the F.I.R. the informant (PW 12) did not specifically say about causing injury by tangi on head of Savitri Devi (deceased) but F.I.R is not encyclopedia and in the evidences the eye witnesses namely PW 3 (injured witness), PW 4 and PW 12 have said about assault by tangi on the head of Savitri Devi. It is further submitted that the defence story of accidental death was wrongly believed by the trial Court. The impugned judgment was assailed on the other grounds also.;