EHTESHAMUL HAQUE @ ESTAJUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P for the State.

(2.) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against judgement of acquittal dated 03.12.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court -II, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 446/2011 arising out of Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 165/2010 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 6 from the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 324, 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the judgment submitted that the sole reason for acquittal of the respondents by the trial court is that the injury reports have not been proved by the Doctor who prepared it, without considering the fact that the same has been proved by his Peon who was familiar with the handwriting, signature and in whose presence the same was prepared and therefore, become admissible in evidence in view of Section 32(2) of Evidence Act and in this connection he has placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 702. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is manifestly unjust and unreasonable and the trial court has passed the impugned judgment on erroneous view of law. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has not considered the fact that all the prosecution witnesses including the injured witness have fully supported the prosecution case and their deposition is corroborated by injury reports exhibits. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the Ext. A of the defence, presence of accused persons at the time and place of occurrence has been admitted and the trial court committed error of law by not considering the same. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is fit to be set aside and respondent nos. 2 to 6 are liable to be convicted for the offence charged against them.