[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 514/2002 VISHVANATH SAINI Vs. SOHAN SINGH & ANR. DATE: 23.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Narendra Singh Hada for Mr. C.L. Saini for the complainant- petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar in Criminal Case No. 134/1997, whereby the accused-respondent Sohan Singh has been acquitted from the charge under Section 500 IPC. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 25.03.97 at night the police arrested the complainant's uncle Shri Nanu Ram Mali. To enquire about arrest of his uncle, the complainant-petitioner approached to the Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur Shekhawati and at that time Omprakash Mali, Prakash Saini, Ramu Ram Jat, Prahlad Mali and 3-4 other persons were also there at about 11.30 p.m. At that time, Sohan Singh, SHO used unparliamentary language and abused the complainant-petitioner Vishvanath Saini, Advocate. [2] Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar under Section 504 IPC, upon which cognizance was taken against the accused-respondent by the Court below for the offence under Section 504 IPC, but after completion of the trial, the trial Court having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the statements of the witnesses and the material available on record, has observed that no case for the offence under Section 500 IPC is made out against the accused-respondent and accordingly vide its impugned judgment dated 19.07.2001, acquitted the accused-respondent from the charge under Section 500 IPC giving benefit of doubt as the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt against the accused-respondent. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2001, the complainant-petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2001 passed by the Court below. The prosecution as well as the complainant utterly failed to prove the guilt under Section 500 IPC against the accused-respondent. The witnesses have also not corroborated the allegations levelled [3] in the complaint. PW2 Prakash and PW3 Omprakash are interested and related witnesses to the complainant. As per the statement of PW1 Vishvanath, the complainant, Prahlad Mali, Ramuram, Subodh and Nirmal were also present at that time at police station, but these independent witnesses have not been examined, which were essentially required for just decision on the complaint. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, since the prosecution is not able to prove the offence under Section 500 IPC against the accused-respondent beyond doubt, therefore, he has been acquitted from the charge under Section 500 IPC giving benefit of doubt by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 19.07.2001. This Court do not find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2001 which requires any interference by this Court. Consequently, the criminal revision petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/