IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.116 of 2004 Shahin Perveen ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ..…. Opp. Parties Dated: September 16, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2004 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun whereby the accused persons Maqbool, Smt. Shahida, Nazim and Smt. Chanda were acquitted from the charge of Sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC. It is pertinent to mention here that none turns up on behalf of the revisionist even in the second revised call after lunch, so this Court has given hearing to Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State and has gone through the trial court’s record. It appears that the incident relates back to dated 29.10.1996 when the revisionist along with her other family members were supervising the work of wall plaster done by some Mason along with other labourers and the accused persons intervened. The quarrel was aggravated. Accused persons abused the revisionist and her family members and beat them with Lathi, batten and Khukhri. After the medical examination, the report was lodged which resulted into the submission of the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences stated above. But after recording the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court did not find the guilt proved against the accused and passed the judgment and order of acquittal, which is impugned in this revision. Having gone through the judgment, it is divulged that the incident happened in a densely Muslim populated street and no independent witness could be produced by the prosecution. Besides, there are number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses given by them to the I.O. to that which have been deposed before the trial court; medical injuries were not got proved in the court below; injured persons could not tell unequivocally that what kind of weapon or the means of assault used by the accused persons. So, these all made the basis of acquittal, as recorded by the court below. The grounds of revision are so stereotyped, as has been provided in a routine manner and do not carry any force. In the opinion of this Court, the judgment and order of the trial court is not interferable and thus, the revision is meritless. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 16.09.2011 Rajeev Dang