STATE Vs. JEEWAN KUMAR PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-State has not been able to verify and positively ascertain whether respondent No.2 has expired. It is, however, stated that as per the information available and ascertained, respondent No.2 was a vagabond and resident of Nepal but no one knows his address in the said country. Orally it was stated that respondent No.2 has expired.

(2.) We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, Jeewan Kumar Paswan.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court has erred in acquitting the respondents-accused, inter alia, on the ground that there was delay in recording of the FIR. He relies upon statement of Virender Kumar, PW-4, who it is submitted had also suffered beatings and was an eye witness to the beatings given to deceased Samson. Our attention is drawn to the testimony of PW-1, Radhika wife of the deceased Samson. He submits that the post mortem report, Ex.PX was admitted by the respondents and, therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove the cause of death. He has drawn our attention to the statement of respondent No.1, Jeewan Kumar Paswan recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein he has stated that it is a matter of record whether mobile phone Ex.P1 was seized from the co-accused Rajesh.