IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT GANGARAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 03 OF 2001 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated October 11, 2000 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Deeg Distt. Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 48 of1994 whereby the accused respondents were acquitted of the charges for the offence under sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 352, 324, 326/149 IPC. Date of Order : Feb. 10, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Satish Khandelwal, for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma for the non-petitioners. Mr. Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Gangaram, against the order dated October 11, 2000 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Deeg Distt. Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 48 of 1994 whereby the accused respondent Jagram was acquitted of the charges for the offence under sections 147, 323, 324, 341, 452, 326/149 IPC and accused Kamla was acquitted for the offences under sections452, 341,323, 326/149 IPC and accused respondents Prahlad, Giriraj and Shanti were acquitted of the charges for the offence under sections 452, 323, 341, and 326/149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on August 13, 1988 at 4 p.m. the accused respondents came at the residence of complainant Gangaram and gave beating to his wife, and thereafter they taken away her at the residence of accused Prahalad and further given beating on account of which she suffered fracture of left leg. When the complainant came to rescue her he was also beaten up by the accused respondents. The police registered case under sections 307, 452, 324, 323,147, 148 and 149 IPC. After investigation the police filed challan against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 342 and 452 IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused respondents as mentioned below : 1.Jagram - u/s. 148,323,324,341,452,326/149 2.Kamla - u/s. 452,341,323,326/149 3.Prahlad - u/s. 452,341,323,326/149 ,147 4.Girraj _ u/s. 452,341,323,326/149 ,147 5.Shanti - u/s. 452,341,323,326/149 ,147 The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 13 witnesses in support of its case. The accused respondents were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and produced one witness in defence. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide order dated October 11, 2000 acquitted the accused respondents for the charges framed against them. Aggrieved against the order dated October 11, 2000, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offences charged against them. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of State of Karnataka vs. Papanaika and others (2005 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 1. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned counsel for the accused respondents placed reliance on the judgment dated October 11, 2000 of cross case about the incident of same day, whereby the members of the complainant party were acquitted. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/