Crl. Revision No. 575 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 575 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.09.2010 Kashmira Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, relevant for disposal of present revision petition and emanating from the record is that the criminal proceedings were initiated against private respondents-accused at the instance of Pritam Chand- complainant, vide FIR No. 110 dated 14.11.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences only punishable under Sections 323 and 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by the police of Police Station Shahzadpur. 2. It is not a matter of dispute that all the material witnesses including PW2 Pritam Chand-complainant did not support the prosecution version. Instead of supporting, they have totally demolished the prosecution story in its entirety. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the Special Judge acquitted the private respondents vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.05.2009. PW6 Kashmira Singh, who was one of the prosecution witness did not feel satisfy with the impugned judgment of acquittal and filed the present revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Crl. Revision No. 575 of 2010 -2- 5. As is evident from the record that trial Judge acquitted the private respondents by virtue of judgment of acquittal dated 04.05.2009, the operative part of which is as:- “In view of the above discussed evidence, it is evident that the prosecution allegations, as alleged in the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure could not be substantiated by way of evidence as PW2 Pritam Chand i.e. complainant, PW4 Tarsem Lal i.e. brother of the complainant as well as eye witness, who have resiled from their earlier version and when these witnesses were cross examined, nothing favourable for the prosecution could be extracted from their mouth. Moreover, PW6 Kashmira Singh i.e. another alleged eye witness was inimical to the accused persons and as such he is an interested witness. This being so, from the evidence already discussed, the prosecution allegations, as alleged in the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, could not be substantiated on record.” 6. Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has recorded the cogent and legal reasons for acquitting the private respondents-accused particularly when the complainant who and other material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in its entirety. The impugned judgment containing such valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Section 401 Cr.P.C., unless the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge September 29, 2010 naresh.k