AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
FIR NUMBER,"84/08, dated 26.11.2008, Police Station Chirgaon, District
Shimla, H.P., under Section 341, 323, 325 of IPC.
TRIAL COURT CASE NO.,"Case No.93/2 of 2009, decided on 23.03.2010, by learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Rohru,
District Shimla.
the accused had thrown stick on the child due to which he fell down.,
PW-6 Laiq Ram, aged 38 years also stated in the same terms.",
In this entire evidence the statement of Mukesh Kumar is most relevant. Learned trial court found him to be a competent witness and after that,
examined him. He specifically stated that the accused had thrown stick on his leg. However, this has been contradicted by other prosecution",
witnesses, i.e. PW-5, who said that the accused has thrown stick on his back. Similarly, his sister Kumari Hem Lata, also deposed that the stick was",
hit on his back. It is admitted case of the prosecution that injured broke his teeth due to falling on the stone. The question for consideration before this,
Court is whether the child fell because of the impact of stick or because he got scared after receiving slap from the accused and on seeing the,
accused approaching, he was running away from the spot. Given the contradiction in the statement of the injured and statement of his sister and other",
witnesses that the stick hit which part of the body, it appears that the injured was running from the spot and due to which he fell down. As far as the",
theory of the stick hitting the injured is concerned, there is contradiction and it cannot be believed. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove its case",
beyond all reasonable doubts.,
I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, which is well reasoned and calls for no interference.",
Given above, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.",