IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.23 of 2004 Kiran Singh ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ..…. Respondents Dated: August 23, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Sah, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 as well as Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge dated 22.11.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2002, Maharaj Singh Vs. State, whereby the private respondents no.2 to 4 were acquitted for the charges of Sections 323, 34, 307 IPC. All these private respondents faced trial in the court of Assistant Sessions Judge and in Sessions Trial No.408 of 1999, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted all of them for the offences, stated above, vide his judgment dated 27.8.2002. The grounds of revision have been taken that the judgment of the appellate court is against the weight of evidence on record and that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind properly to the material available on record. Both these grounds do not disclose as to in what manner the learned Sessions Judge failed to apply his mind. It is the settled principle of law that at the stage of revision, the entire evidence adduced before the trial court cannot be re-appreciated by the High Court. 2 The third ground advanced by way of this revision is that the learned Sessions Judge has relied on the false and fabricated Photostat copies of the affidavits. This ground is also baseless, inasmuch as, the learned Sessions Judge has analyzed the merits of the evidence, as deposed by the witnesses. No doubt, the questions were asked in the chief- examination as well as in the cross one regarding the photostat copies of the affidavits, which the witnesses gave during the course of investigation, in original, to the investigating officer, but the evidence, as has been adduced by the witnesses, has been taken into consideration at length by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also relevant to mention here that Gaje Singh and Ravindra Singh were the injured persons. Out of them, Gaje Singh has been declared hostile, as he did not support the prosecution version, while Ravindra Singh, although supported the prosecution version, but the medical officer has proved that most of injuries caused to Ravind Singh are of superficial nature and could be caused by falling down on the ground. Sri Harphool Singh is the father of Ravindra Singh. Regarding Harphool Singh, Ravindra Singh himself has stated that he arrived at the spot while the accused persons were taking to their heels. The similar statement has also been given by Ravindra Singh regarding the witness Kiran Singh. This way, Harphool Singh and Kiran Singh, as has been held by the learned Sessions Judge, are also not the eyewitnesses. Other independent witnesses like Manohar, Shyam Singh and Virendra, have not been produced by the prosecution and nor any cause has been assigned for their non-examination in the court. In totality, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has neither committed any illegality nor any impropriety nor there is any material inconsistency while rendering the judgment under appeal. 3 In view of the above, this revision has got no force, which is liable to be dismissed. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 23.08.2011 Rajeev Dang