GUDDU @ FARMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments heard and trial court record perused.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions of appellant, submits that the present appeal is pressed only on the point that offence under Section 397 IPC is not made out against the appellant on the evidence adduced on record; and at best offence under Section 392 IPC is made out.

(3.) A perusal of impugned judgment shows that appellant has been convicted under Section 397 IPC by the trial court primarily, by placing reliance on the statement of PW1-Gulshan (victim) which has been found trustworthy and reliable. Further, that statements of PW3 and PW4 corroborate the statement of PW1.