PAPPU Vs. STATE OF U.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAPPU son of Sher Singh, the petitioner herein, was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, under Sections 452/354 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 452 I.P.C., in default of payment thereof, he was to undergo S.I. for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 354 of the I.P.C.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, which also stands dismissed by the impugned judgment dated July 21, 2004. Hence, this revision.

(3.) MR . Bajaj contends that main witnesses of the prosecution including the prosecutrix had exaggerated the basic case set up by the prosecution at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. He then contends that the Investigating Officer had not joined any independent witnesses from the neighbourhood. He further contends that defence of the petitioner has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court, which is proved by the cogent evidence.