STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. MOHKAM SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal un­der Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 7-5-2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2005, along with delay condonation ap­plication No. 819 of 2008 and leave to appeal application No. 91 of 2008.

(2.) THE delay in filing the appeal is sufficiently explained in the affidavit ac­companying the delay condonation ap­plication, therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged with the police by the complainant Jahid which was registered as Crime No. 265 of 2000. However, the police after in­vestigation appears to have submitted fi­nal report. The Magistrate after record­ing the statement of the complainant and his witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance in the complaint case and summoned the ac­cused. Thereafter the Magistrate re­corded the evidence of witnesses under Section 244 Cr.P.C., framed the charge against the accused, recorded the evi­dence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. and after completing the trial found the ac­cused (present respondents) guilty of charge of offences punishable under Sections 379, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. in the said complaint case. Aggrieved by said Judgment and order dated 27-8-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Laksher, the convicts (present respond­ents) filed Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, after hearing the parties and re-appreciating the evidence on record, found that complainant has failed to prove the charge against the accused and as such acquitted them.