//
you're reading...
legal issues

Delay in filing FIR=There is also no explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint. Further-more, the lower Court noticed that the evidence of the doctor clearly goes to show that on 02.09.2001 PW.1 was examined at 12-00 Noon and the age of the injuries is about 24 to 36 hours prior to the examination, consequently the lower Court has found that the injuries must have been caused, if any, prior to 12.00 Noon on 01.09.2001, and which destroy the prosecution case that the incident happened on 01.09.2001 at 9.30 P.M. Evidently, there are said to be some civil disputes and ill-feelings between both the parties. The evidence of PW.1 is not supported by any independent evidence and the medical evidence is also not corroborative and therefore, the lower Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and there are no compelling reasons to come to a different conclusion.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEN.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

English: penal code

Image via Wikipedia

 

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.70 OF 2012

 

 

JUDGMENT:-

 

The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in Calendar Case No.324 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur.

 

2.       The parties are referred as arrayed in the lower Court.

 

 

3.       The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) alleging that on 01.09.2001 all the accused beat PW.1 at about 9.30 P.M., when he objected for removal of the mud by A.3 associated by the other accused.   After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found that the sole testimony of PW.1 is not believable and did not believe the presence of the other witnesses and also found that there was a delay and inconsistency with regard to the time of incident and gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.

 

4.       The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the reasons given by the Court below are not proper.  Evidently, in this case, the incident was said to have happened on 01.09.2001 at about 9.30 P.M.  PW.1 claims that he was said to have been treated by the doctor on 02.09.2001 at about 12.00 Noon.  But, however, the complaint was lodged at 11.30 P.M., on 02.09.2001.  It is not known as to whether PW.1 was taken to the hospital by the police or he himself has voluntarily gone to the police station.  There is also no explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint.  Further-more, the lower Court noticed that the evidence of the doctor clearly goes to show that on 02.09.2001 PW.1 was examined at 12-00 Noon and the age of the injuries is about 24 to 36 hours prior to the examination, consequently the lower Court has found that the injuries must have been caused, if any, prior to 12.00 Noon on 01.09.2001, and which destroy the prosecution case that the incident happened on 01.09.2001 at 9.30 P.M.  Evidently, there are said to be some civil disputes and ill-feelings between both the parties.  The evidence of PW.1 is not supported by any independent evidence and the medical evidence is also not corroborative and therefore, the lower Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and there are no compelling reasons to come to a different conclusion.

 

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

 

___________________________

JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

Date: 18-01-2012

INL

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,445 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: