THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU

JUDGMENT:

Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25-08-2009 in C.C.No.86 of 2006, where under, the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, found the respondents/accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 290 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’), the State has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) on the following grounds.

2. The Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence. The trial Judge ought to have seen that the ingredients to construe the evidence under Section 323, 290, 506 of IPC had been made out by the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of injured and eye-witnesses, who were examined as PWs.2, 3 and 5 acquitted the accused but did not consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses in a correct perspective, thereby, sought for setting aside the judgment and prayed for conviction of the respondents/accused. According to the charge sheet filed against the respondents, it is specifically alleged by the prosecution that based on a complaint presented