DIAL ALIAS DIALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule obtained by Diala who was discharged by a Magistrate and on revision further enquiry has been ordered by the District Magistrate.

(2.) Diala, it is alleged by the prosecution, gave Rs. 10 to Risalu to buy some liquor. The latter spent Rs. 7 for the liquor bottle and had three rupees balance with him. Diala asked for the liquor as well as for the balance but it was not paid by Risalu nor was the liquor delivered to Diala. This led to grappling according to P.Ws., 9 and 11 and arguing according to P.Ws.1 and 10. The witnesses did not say anything as to the injuries which were found on the deceased whose dead body was found on the day following the occurrence as it was dark and they were far away from where arguing or grappling was going on. Two witnesses did say that the accused told that the deceased gave him a blow and he gave one in return. But his is such a vague statement that it cannot be relied on.

(3.) The learned District Magistrate in revision has observed that the Magistrate did not ask the prosecution as to whether they had any other witnesses to examine or not. In the circumstances of this case I do not think that was necessary because all the witnesses were examined and the only witness who remained to be examined was the Head-constable who did nothing more than arrest the accused Diala. I do not think that there has been any transgression of the law of Criminal Procedure Code, and on the evidence which was led the learned Magistrate who originally heard the case was perfectly justified in discharging the accused as there was case made out against the accused.