VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not think that leave to appeal is required to be filed after amendment and substitution made by way of proviso in Section 372, Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. The Registry will accordingly treat the present petition for leave to appeal as criminal appeal and it will be registered accordingly.

(2.) THE complainant Ved Prakash impugns judgment of acquittal dated 21st May, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.16/2008 arising out of FIR No.1991/2005 police station Sultan Puri under Section 307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in acquitting the two respondents on the basis that the respondents were not named in the FIR. He relies upon decision of the Supreme Court in Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Another, 2013 (10) SCALE 129 and that Sunil, one of the respondents was arrested on 13th December, 2005 immediately after the occurrence. It should be accordingly held that involvement of the two respondents was stated and asserted by the complainant. He has also drawn our attention to the statement made by the complainant Ved Prakash, who has deposed as PW -1 and his sister Raj Rani (PW -4), who was residing in the same premises with the complainant.