M. Jeyapaul, J.@mdashThe appeal has been filed by Jeet Singh one of the injured challenging the acquittal of accused Amit S/o. Satbir and accused Amit S/o. Suresh. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-injured Jeet Singh would submit that the trial Court failed to note the fact that PW1 Satbir Singh had suffered supplementary statement implicating these accused persons as well. It is his further submission that the recovery of the weapons of offence from these accused was also lost sight of by the trial Court.
2. PW1 Satbir Singh who lodged the complaint was one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, as per the case of the prosecution. He kept quite for about six months and thereafter, came out with supplementary statement implicating the aforesaid accused. No plausible explanation was forthcoming for such a whooping delay. It is further found that none of the eye-witnesses had spoken to the fact that any of the accused was armed with lathi in his hand but unfortunately recovery of lathi has been shown as against these accused. In our considered view, the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges as against accused Amit S/o. of Satbir and accused Amit S/o. of Suresh. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed in limine.
