IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Bharat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1679/2009) S. B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18- 9-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tijara, District Alwar, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondents. Date of Judgment: November 27, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Ashvin Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 18-9- 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tijara, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondents No.2 to 8 for the offences under sections 148, 323, 324 and 308 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15-9-2007, the petitioner, Bharat, had lodged a written report before the Police Station Tijara, stating interalia that land of Khasra Nos.756, 673, 674 and 678 belongs to him and his family members. However, on the same day around 10.00 AM, accused Ratan Lal, Khem Chand, Nitesh, Smt.Suman, Govind, Kamal Kishore, Smt.Leela Devi, Suresh, Subhash, Beena, Poonam, Pista, Resham and Leelawati came there and started to harvest the crop. When Nawal and Radhey Lal saw the accused persons, they tried to stop them from harvesting the crop. Upon this, Radhey Lal hit Nawal on his head; Khem Chand also assaulted Nawal. Consequently Nawal was seriously injured. Similarly, Radhey Shyam (Radhey Lal) was assaulted by Govind, Nitesh, Suresh and Subhash. When Amit and Kapil tried to rescue Nawal and Radhey Lal, they were assaulted by Smt.Beena, Smt.Suman and Smt.Leelawati. Kapil was assaulted by Khem Chand , Poonam, Resham and Pista. Upon hearing hues and cries of the injured, Murti Devi and Manoj rushed to their rescue. Murti Devi was assaulted by Leelawati, Beena and Suman. Her gold ornaments were taken away by the accused persons. When Murti Devi raised alarm, the complainant, Bharat, and other persons namely, Jai Prakash and Heera Lal reached to the place of crime. They removed the injured to the hospital. On the basis of the report a FIR, FIR No.369/2007 for the offences under sections 143, 447, 323 and 379 was chalked out. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge- sheet against the accused persons for offences under Sections 143, 323, 324 and 308 IPC. Subsequently, the trial court framed charges for afore- mentioned offences. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, and exhibited a large number of documents. In defence, the accused Ratan Lal examined himself as witness and produced some documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondents. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Ashvin Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Although, it might have been a case of free fight between two groups, but nonetheless, the complainant party had also suffered injuries. Moreover, the injuries were of such a nature as to make out an offence of Section 308 IPC. However, notwithstanding the nature of injuries, the sufficiency of the evidence, the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the material available on record, and examined the impugned judgment. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has meticulously discussed the evidence. After discussing the evidence, he has validly concluded that the land in dispute, in fact, belonged to the accused persons, and not to the complainant. He has also validly concluded that the accused persons had suffered a large number of injuries. The learned Judged considered the nature of injuries suffered by the accused persons, and the fact that accused persons had assaulted the complainant party, in their right of private defence. Lastly, that the injuries suffered by Naval and Radhey Shyam were simple in nature. Thus, no offence under section 308 IPC was made out. Since, the learned Judge has meticulously examined and appreciated the evidence, he has correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from perversity or any illegality. 6. For the reasons, mentioned herein above, there is no merit in the revision petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn/