STATE Vs. RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A. 20064/2011 (Exemption)

(2.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the leave sought in this case ought to be granted. The Registry is accordingly directed to list the Criminal Leave Petition as Criminal Appeal.

(3.) ON the strength of these allegations, the accused were arrested; three on the spot and Chatter Pal on 06.03.2007. After conclusion of investigations, the police filed a charge sheet ;the accused were tried for committing offences punishable under Sections 394/397/411/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, which included PW -1, the PCR official who had also seized the mobile phone, and was produced as Ex. P -1. The complainant, PW -2 was examined during the trial. The others were police witnesses, except PWs -4 and 5, the doctors who had examined the injured. According to PW -5, who proved Ex. PW -4/A, the injuries found on the victim were grievous and caused by a blunt object. Apparently, the injured had suffered a fracture. In the opinion of PW -5, this could have been possible due to his fall from the two -wheeler. The Trial Court considered the materials on record which included the deposition of a crucial witness, i.e. PW -2. He was apparently not cross -examined. The relevant discussion, after narration of the evidence recorded by the Trial Court ultimately resulting in acquittal of the respondents are found in the following extracts: