IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2004 Shahida. ………. Revisionist. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ....…. Respondents Present : Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. H.O. Bhakuni, Advocate for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case no. 1194 of 2003 titled as State Vs. Rukhsar and others. In the said case, accused persons namely Sri Ruksar, Smt. Zameela, Ms. Afsana, Shaheena Parveen and Shaheen Parveen were tried for the offence under Section 147, 506, 324, 504 IPC and the trial ended in acquittal. 2. It is pertinent to mention that a cross criminal case no. 110 of 1999 titled as State Vs. Maqbool and others, was also tried by the same Magistrate and vide judgment, delivered on the same date i.e. 21.06.2004, accused Maqbool, Smt. Shahida, Nazim and Smt. Chanda were acquitted from the charge of Section 323, 325, 504 IPC. Thus, both the cross cases could not be proved against each other and the learned Magistrate passed the judgment and order of acquittal in both the cases. 3. Against the order of acquittal, passed in criminal case no. 110 of 1999, a revision no. 116 of 2004 was preferred by Shaheen Parveen, daughter of Sri Rukhsar Ahmad and this 2 revision was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2011. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist on merits of this revision. After perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that no independent witness was produced in order to prove and corroborate the evidence of the victims, notwithstanding the incident alleged to have taken place in the dense population of a street occupied by Muslim families. Even the natural witness, a scavenger, who was indulged in the altercation, could not be examined by the prosecution. The prosecution story discloses that a number of persons assembled to rescue the victims but none of them has been examined. No medical officer has been produced by the State to prove the injury reports of the victims. The case was initially registered as NCR, which was later on converted as cognizable one. The first information report, which was given to the police, was not produced before the court below. No motive was indicated by the prosecution for the alleged dispute between the parties. 5. All told, it appears that both the cross versions were aggravated by either parties in order to launch prosecution against each other. It could not be ascertained by the evidence produced by either of the parties that which one was aggressor upon the other. It appears that it was a matter of trifle altercation between the parties, which was later on, converted into shape of cross prosecution against each other. 6. Learned Magistrate, it appears, has rightly appreciated very weak evidence or no evidence, in order to support the prosecution and has ended the trial in acquittal 3 correctly. So this revision too has no force and liable to be dismissed. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 7. Registry is directed to send the lower court record back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 11.10.2011 SKS