MEHRAJ Vs. SALAMAT HUSSAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-10-93, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondents and acquitted them.

(2.) Accused-respondents Salamat Hussain, Aziz Mohammed and Murtaza Hussain were tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 451 and 3231.P.C. on a complaint filed by complainant-petitioner Smt. Mehraj. The complainant, in support of her complaint, examined four witnesses. Out of these four witnesses, PW 3 Nathua eye witness of the occurrence - has not supported the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicted the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 451 and 323 I.P.C. but instead of sentencing them at-once to any imprisonment, gave them the benefit of probation and directed them to furnish the bonds of Rs.1,000.00 each for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The learned Magistrate, also, ordered each of the accused to pay Rs.100.00 to the complainant as compensation. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 17-7-91, passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the accused, they preferred an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, by his judgment dated 19-8-93. It is against this judgment, acquitting the accused-respondents of the aforesaid offences that the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant that from the evidence produced by the prosecution the case against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 451 and 323 I.P.C. is made out and the learned lower Court has committed an error in acquitting them of the aforesaid offences. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below.