AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 317 words@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Heard.
This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) passed in Sessions Case No.146/2010 on 16.9.2011, for committing offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B, 307/149, 326/149, 323/149 of the IPC and Section 25(1-B) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act.
In all 27 persons were sent for trial for causing injuries endangering life of injured PW-15 Shiv Kumar. The trial Court convicted 7 persons namely (1) Vishnu Prasad, (2) Purayan (3) Puriram (4) Anujram (5) Maharaj Sai (6) Gaukaran and (7) Pyarelal, while acquitting the present respondents.
Learned State Counsel would argue that PW-15 Shiv Kumar categorically named the present respondents also as the persons responsible for causing injuries to him. His statement is duly corroborated by PW-13 Anusuiya, who is an eye-witness being the wife of the injured. His statement is also supported by PW-5 Roopchand and PW-8 Baldau.
We have scrutinised the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. In his deposition, injured PW-15 Shiv Kumar has specifically named only those 7 accused persons, who have been convicted by the trial Court, while for others, he has made omnibus statement that others also assaulted him by club.
PW-2 Dr. Archana Singh, who has medically examined the injured, has found only 7 injuries over the person of the deceased in his MLC report. Thus, the statement of the injured attributing specific act to the convicted accused persons is corroborated by the medical evidence.
The reasoning assigned by learned trial Court that the injured himself has not specifically named the respondents for causing any specific injury appears to be one probable view in the matter in the state of evidence on record. Therefore, no case for interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal is made out.
The acquittal appeal is dismissed.