GOVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 19th of February, 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 128/1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh. District Kawardha (C.G.), the victim has filed this revision. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : - -

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant have argued that the Sessions Judge erred in law in discarding the evidence of above witnesses, therefore, the judgment vitiates.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence of complainant -Goverdhan (P.W. 2) in paras 7 to 12 of the impugned judgment. The Sessions Judge has observed that there were material contradictions in his Court evidence as also dairy statement (Ex -D -1) and First Information Report (Ex -P -2). It was observed that according to this witness, initially the case was that his pet dog had entered into the house of respondents 2 to 5, therefore they attacked over him, whereas, in Court evidence he deposed that it was not his pet dog, but the incident occurred when some street dog entered into the house of respondents 2 to 5. The Sessions Judge held that according to the police papers, the incident took place in the house of the complainant (P.W. 2) as accused persons entered into his house, whereas, according to the Court evidence of complainant (P.W. 2), he was dragged to the house of accused persons and there he was assaulted. Thus place of occurrence was changed. There were other contradictions in the Court version, F.I.R. and dairy statement of the complainant (P.W. 2). The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, did not rely on the testimony of complainant (P.W. 2).