AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction u/s,Sentence,"Default
clause              Â
324 of IPC,"RI for 2 years
with fine of
Rs.1,000/-.",RI for 2 months
506-B of IPC,"RI for 1 year
with fine of
Rs.1,000/-",RI for 2 months
which must have contained the blood stain, as admittedly the injured eyewitness, who was bleeding from his neck, caught him at the time of incident,",,
but no such shirt had been seized by the police.,,
The record also reveals that none of the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution including the seizure witnesses,,
Badku (PW-2) and Dharmendra (PW-3). Although Dharmendra (PW-3) has admitted his signature on the memorandum (Ex.P-4) prepared under,,
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as already discussed above, even the said document is highly doubtful.",,
The appellant has also examined two witnesses namely Sachikant Dwivedi (DW-1) and Rajkumar Singh (DW-2), who claimed to be the eye-",,
witnesses and according to them, no such incident has taken place and the injuries caused to complainant (PW-1) were caused as he fell down from a",,
motorcycle and due to he sustained injuries.,,
In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred in convicting the present appellant",,
by not adverting the aforesaid material aspects of the matter, which ought to have been proved on record and in absence of the same, the entire",,
prosecution story becomes highly doubtful.,,
In the result, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment dated 7.2.2018 passed in ST No.291/2013 by the First Additional Sessions",,
Judge, Sidhi is hereby set aside. At present the appellant is in jail, hence it is directed that he be released forth with.",,