PRAHLAD & MUNNI Vs. STATE & KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant petitioners (husband and wife) have challenged order dated 25.8.01 of CJM Tonk acquitting Kanhaiyalal (respondent No.2) of the charges Under Section 451 and 323, Indian Penal Code in Cr. Case No. 675/2K arising out of FIR No.8/89 registered at PS Kotwali (Tonk) on written complaint of petitioner No. 1 alleging inter alia that his wife was beaten by respondent No. 1 with a hammer blow on her abdomen and at that time, his tenant Nenulal came to rescue but he was also beaten up by causing hunter blow.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court erred in law in ignoring the fact that due to animosity arising out of litigation pending between the parties, respondent No.2 had caused hammer (Hathodi) blow to petitioner No.2, which itself, proved the motive for the incident, and thereby erred in disbelieving prosecution version only on the ground of discrepancies whereas they were natural in reliable evidence on record.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for complainant petitioners at admission stage. Perused the impugned judgment and the record,which was called for by this court before admission of this petition.