CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1190 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 04, 2011 Budh Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is the complainant in FIR No.53 recorded on 7.4.2000 under Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC. This seems to be a case of fight between some ladies living as neighbourers. Budh Ram, whose mother got injured, was taken to the hospital by the petitioner. He had reached the spot on hearing that the ladies have had some fight. The petitioner alleged that in his presence and in presence of his brother, Bimla, Bibo etc. hit their mother on her forehead with the brick. The petitioner took her mother to the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1190 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: hospital. While he was returning on his scooter, he was attacked by the accused persons by encircling the scooter. The petitioner alleged that he was given beatings with dangs and soties. The quarrel appears to have taken on account of some dispute regarding a wall. The main submission of the petitioner is that the Court has misread the incident. The case against the respondent-accused was for using force against Budh Ram, leading to offence under Sections 323, 324 IPC whereas the Court has construed it on the attack on the mother of the petitioner. The respondent-accused persons were let off primarily on the ground that mother was not examined, taking her to be a complainant and a victim in this case. In fact, it was Budh Ram, who was a victim and this aspect of the case has accordingly been misread. I have considered this submission in the light of evidence, as can be discerned from the impugned order. Even if this aspect is kept aside, it appears that the petitioner has made some vague allegations against the accused, who are more in number. The quarrel, which took place between the neighbourers, obviously was over some minor incident. Instead of making efforts to resolve, the parties have been litigating and have ultimately approached this Court by way of present proceedings. Considering the nature of allegations and the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1190 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: evidence that would emerge and the fact that Budh Ram's evidence was also discussed by the Trial Court. Finding some contradictions in his versions if he was conscious or unconscious or whether he had given his signatures at the time of medical examination etc., his version was doubted. I do not find it to be a fit case of interference. Though the Court, while interfering in the appeal or revision from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Courts, is entitled to re- appreciate the evidence and can come to an independent conclusions, but this is not to be done as a matter of routine as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(10) SCC 461. The revisional Court would generally interfere if the view formed is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial Court is not based on any material on record. Otherwise, it should not interfere merely because another conclusion is possible to reverse the finding of the trial Court. There is no perversity seen in the order and rather the view taken by the trial Court is based on evidence. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out in the order of acquittal returned by the trial Court. The present revision is, accordingly, dismissed. October 04, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) Khurmi JUDGE