STATE OF H.P. Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.12.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Criminal Case No.104/2 of 1993.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 1.12.1992 at about 12 noon complainant Jamshed Ali was in the shop of his uncle and Satish Kumar accused had been working in the adjacent jewellery shop. The accused turned up at the shop of Jamshed Ali and tried to pickup a bucket in which material was lying for jewellery plating. Suresh Kumar PW-2 was sitting in the shop. The complainant protested against the act of accused to pickup bucket from the shop, on this accused got infuriated Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? and thereafter turned up with a bottle of acid. The accused tried to throw acid on the person of the complainant . PW-2 Suresh Kumar tried to prevent the accused from throwing the acid but some acid fell on Suresh Kumar also and in this process complainant as well as Suresh Kumar sustained burn injuries on their person. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR Ex.PA was registered, Ex.P-1 Jarsi and Ex.P-2 track suite of the complainant which he was wearing were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. Jamshed Ali and Suresh Kumar were medically examined and their MLCs are Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B. The trouser of Suresh Kumar which he was wearing at the relevant time was also taken into possession by the police. Acid bottle was also taken into possession. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was obtained which is Ex.PX. The accused was tried in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for having committed an offence under Section 324 . He was acquitted vide impugned judgment.

(3.) THE learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the material on record. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.