HUKUM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th July, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 29th July, 2010 whereby the Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) APPELLANT No. 1 Hukum Singh had died during the pendency of the appeal. Thus, the appeal qua him stands abated vide order dated 9th January, 2012. Learned counsel for the Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 contends that by the impugned judgment the learned Trial Court has overlooked the cardinal principles of criminal law that the burden of proof of a case is upon the prosecution and not on the accused. Learned Trial Court has ignored the factual matrix of the case and passed the impugned judgment on conjectures and surmises. It is stated that the exculpatory version qua appellants has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. The MLC of the Appellants is disbelieved by the learned Trial Court as it was proved by the record clerk whereas the MLC of the complainant is believed though it is also proved by the record clerk and not the doctor concerned. There are major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. There are material improvements in the testimony of PW1, complainant from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that PW2 has deposed that his statement was recorded only once in the police station and before coming to the Court his statement was shown to him. It is stated that there is no clear and cogent testimony/evidence placed on record by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The impugned judgment is thus bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.