AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Kumar, J.
This revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 51292 whereby the Opp. Pirty No. 2 was aequitted. The revision has been filed by the complaint of this case. It is contended that eyewitness account has been disbelieved without any reason. Learned counsel for the revisionists also filed copy of the statement of Prem Chand who has first supported the prosecution version rut in cross examination, he resiled from his earlier statement but he has stated very dearly that the accident had occurred l0 to 15 minutes before he reached the place of occurrence. When the witness has decclered hostile on the request of the moscculion, bagain supported the proscation case. This it self was sufficient to prove that the witness was not reliable and, therefore, the learned tower Couri eommiltcd no illegality in rejecting his evidenee and aequitting (he accused. Learned counsel for the revisionisis was placing reliance upon 1992 Cr LJ page 2242. However, the facts are totally different. Thus there is no force in this revision which is hereby rejected.
Revision dismissed.