VIJAY KUMAR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At request of learned counsel for the appellant, the present criminal acquittal appeal is treated as revision petition and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The judgment of acquittal dtd. 23/1/2008 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial Court') in case titled State v. Om Parkash and others by virtue of which, the respondents have been acquitted by the learned trial Court has been impugned in the present petition primarily on the ground that the learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has jumped to the wrong conclusion thereby acquitting the respondents and further that the respondents had not led any evidence in rebuttal so the prosecution story remains un-rebutted so far as respondents are concerned. It is further stated that the main ground on the basis of which the respondents have been acquitted is that the FIR was not registered on the same day but on the subsequent day.

(3.) Mr. Vijay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that learned trial Court has fallen in a grave error of law by observing that the FIR was required to be registered on the same day when the information was received by the concerned Police Station with regard to the commission of offence and further that the statement of the complainant clearly proved the offence under sec. 436 RPC.