STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated 21.8.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, acquittal of the respondent has been recorded in context of charge under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The acquittal has been recorded on the ground that there is material differences/contradictions in photographs Ex.P-1 to P-7 and the site plan, prepared by the Investigating Agency. In such circumstances, the incident as projected by the prosecution, case is not proved and therefore, it has not established that offence has been committed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-State states that eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

(3.) I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. Site plan and photographs do depict a picture of what might have taken place at the time of incident. Since the two pieces of evidence contradict each other, an opinion has been formulated by the trial Court that conviction cannot be recorded. A possible opinion has been formulated which requires no interference in appeal against acquittal.