SUNITA DASS Vs. BIDYUT BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sunita Dass has filed the present appeal against Bidyut Biswas respondent challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 352 and 506 IPC.

(2.) It is mainly stated in the grounds of appeal that judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in criminal complaint No.46 dated 01.08.2005 acquitting the accused-respondent of the offences under Sections 352 and 506 IPC is manifestly illegal, unjust, perverse and there are sufficient grounds for interfering with it and to reverse it. Notice of motion was issued in this case and respondent appeared through his counsel and contested the present appeal. The name of respondent No.2-Bant Singh has been deleted vide order dated 08.07.2014 as he was not summoned in the criminal complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that statement of the complainant was duly supported by his son and by other witnesses and her version has been duly corroborated by other witnesses but the Court has acquitted respondent No.1 Bidyut Biswas by mainly stating that witnesses are interested witnesses. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argued that judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court. He further argued that there is allegation that some beating was given but there is no medical evidence to prove that any injury was suffered by the complainant. There is no document on the record to show that complainant approached to the police. No copy of application which the complainant may have sent to higher authority has been placed on record. He next argued that complainant and her son have only appeared in the witness box to prove the version and the version is not supported and corroborated by independent witnesses and there are discrepancies in the statements of the PWs. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further contended that version is improbable and there is also delay in filing the complaint. He next contended that there is no documentary evidence regarding advancing of loan.