SHOBA GUPTA Vs. DOGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein were booked in a case FIR No. 11 of 17.2.1993, under Sections 452/323/34 IPC, registered at police station Phagwara under Sections 452/323/34 IPC. Vide judgment dated 26.3.1996 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara they were convicted under Sections 452/323/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded was RI for one year under Section 452 IPC besides a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of Session, which was allowed vide judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated 29-9-1999, thereby acquitting the respondents of all the charges. Hence, this revision by the complainant impugning the judgment of acquittal.

(2.) ADMITTED position is that the State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. A certificate to this effect issued by the office of the Advocate General is there on the file.

(3.) MR . Sharma appearing for the petitioner contends that the appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly attached importance to the delay of 7 hours in lodging the FIR, whereas the same is explained by the complainant in Court, stating on oath that the injured did not go to the police station and had gone to the hospital directly on account of the injuries. The police had come to the hospital after receipt of the medico legal report sent by the doctor and thereafter the statement of the complainant was recorded. The learned counsel then contends that this has caused material prejudice to the case of the complainant.