TILAK RAJ SHAHNI Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated dated 31.5.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 29/2002, State v. Harbhajan Singh. The said trial was adjudicated in acquittal with the result that the accused respondent Harbhajan Singh was exonerated of the charge of offence punishable under Section 304 -A of the IPC.

(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the complainant Tilak Raj Shahni against the accused Harbhajan Singh, who was served sufficiently and he also engaged Mr. A.K. Gautam and Mr. L.K. Tiwar, Advocates, to plead the case on his behalf. Their Vakalatnama is also on the record. But none turned up on behalf of the accused respondent even in the revised call. So, hearing was extended to learned Counsel for the complainant revisionist. Also perused the trial court record.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist argued that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is quite misconceived because in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, the trial judge has committed an error by stating that the FIR was lodged on the next day while it is not so. In fact, the FIR was lodged, not on the next day, but it was lodged in the intervening night of the same day, just within one and half hours of the finding of the dead body of Deepak Shahni. Although it was technically the next date, but not strictly the next day after sunrise. So, this way, the finding of the learned trial court is quite erratic.