STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. INDERJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, above said appeal as well as revision petition would be disposed of.

(2.) The present appeal, i.e. CRA-S-1236-SBA of 2005 and revision petition, i.e. CRR No.849 of 2005 were filed by the State of Punjab and the complainant-Shamsher Singh Parmar in respective cases, against the judgment dated 24.11.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Hoshiarpur acquitting the respondents for the offences under Section 323, 342, 325, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned State counsel in CRA-S 1236-SBA of 2005 vehemently argued pointing out my attention to Para 9 of the impugned judgment which is the crux of the reasons for recording acquittal. According to him, learned trial Judge has not at all legally and correctly applied the principles regarding appreciation and marshalling of evidence that was tendered before him and has by merely making statements of the basis of criminal jurisprudence recorded the order of acquittal. He submitted that the trial Court has rejected the prosecution case on one of the grounds that the statement was recorded by the police of the injured and the eye-witness on the next day and therefore, there was delay which was unexplained. He, further argued that except writing a mere sentence that PW1 and PW5 were interested witnesses, the trial Court has not given any reason as to why testimony of even interested witnesses could be rejected. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment impugned is sans any reasons much less the reasons required for recording of order of acquittal or writing the judgment in the criminal case.