Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the companyplainant, the investigating agency laid a charge sheet before the companypetent companyrt against the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC .
The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, referred to the trial companyrt judgment and opined that the trial companyrt, after appreciation of the evidence on record, has opined that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as there was number adequate evidence to substantiate the charges against the respondent and, hence, there was numberlegality in the judgment of acquittal.
The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 2.12.2011, acquitted the respondent herein of the charge on the foundation that there was numberwitness to the occurrence of the crime and further PW 2, the wife of the companyplainant, companyld number tell the exact abuses hurled at her by the accused respondent.
C. No.
The learned Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, companymitted the matter to the Court of Session.
In the application seeking leave to appeal, many a ground was urged challenging the judgment of acquittal.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
1835 of 2012 whereby the High Court has declined to grant leave to the State to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 2.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.
Questioning the assailability and substantiality of the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in M.Cr.
193 of 2010, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred.
