STATE Vs. HASNAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the judgment dated 31.8.2012, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, thereby acquitting the accused persons of the charges framed against them under Sections 302/102B Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against the accused person, as per prosecution, are that:

(3.) Addressing arguments in support of the present criminal leave to appeal, Mr.K.S Singh, Counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring the vital pieces of evidence, which emerged during the course of trial but were not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, who are the daughter and the son of the deceased respectively and who had specifically stated in their testimonies that respondent No.1, their father used to beat the deceased and used to torture the deceased and they started living with their mother in the house of PW-15, their uncle. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the call details of the deceased's phone number i.e. 9213084293 and of the respondent No. 1 i.e. 9811588670 were from the same area on the date of the incident and there were eight calls between the deceased and respondent No.1. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 had called 11 times to respondent No.2 on his mobile number 9716758181, which belong to PW-9 Raj Kumar and after the incident both the mobile phones were switched off. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court had also failed to appreciate the fact that from the testimonies of PW-2, PW- 3, PW-4 and PW-5, the motive of respondent No. 1 to commit murder was very clear as he was suspicious about the character of the deceased. Based on these submissions counsel for the petitioner prayed for the grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the said judgment on acquittal.