STATE OF M P Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard . The appellant/State has challenged the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna in Special S.T.No.131/2003 on 22.1.2010, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 452, 354 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(xi) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) The learned Panel Lawyer submitted that testimony of the complainant has been corroborated by Kailash PW -5) as well as the FIR. The learned trial Court has committed error in holding that delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. It is prayed that thus the learned trial has committed error in acquitting the respondent from the charges.

(3.) The prosecution has not examined the mother -in -law Kanchanbai and Jeth Jamnalal, who reached the spot. Kanchanbai is the mother -in -law and Jamnalal is Jeth of the complainant. No explanation has been given why they have not been examined. The incident took place on 22.7.2003 at 8.00 9.00 PM while the report has been lodged on the next day at 15.30 hours. Gyarsiram (PW -3), who is the husband of the complainant, has stated in para 5 that Kailash and Madholal told him to lodge the report, hence he has lodged the report after three days of the incident. He has further admitted that Kailash and Madholal has not come to the place of occurrence. They assured him that they will given evidence of behalf of them. He has categorically admitted that if Kailash and Madholal have not assured him he would not lodge the report. In para 5 he has admitted that there is a dispute between the accused and Kailash and Madholal.