RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 18-2-1983, passed by Sri Ami Chand Verma the then 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ghazipur, in Criminal case No. 686 of 1981 acquitting the accused opposite parties for the offence under Sections 147/323/325, I.P.C.

(2.) I have perused the record of the case and heard Sri V. B. Singh the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

(3.) It is clear from the judgement of the learned Munsif Magistrate that as many as three injured witnesses were examined before him. The learned Magistrate without considering the evidence of the injured witnesses was pleased to acquit the accused opposite parties for the simple reason that an independent eye-witness of the occurrence was not produced before him. When the learned Magistrate has not written a word in his judgement as to why the testimony of the injured witnesses of the occurrence was discarded, the approach of the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused opposite parties for want of the availability of independent eye-witness of the occurrence was perverse and illegal. It, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is important to note here that according to the injury report available in the record the following injuries were found on the person noted against each :-I. Injury of Sita Ram1. An. artero posterior lacerated wound 4 cms. x 1/2 cm. muscle deep on the top of the scalp 7 cms. above the root of the nose; the margins were irregular and covered with soft blackish crests.2. Complained pain in the chest region.3. An oblique reddish abraded contusion 8 cms. x 1 cm.on the left side chest 2 cms. below and outer to the left nipple.