IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2002 Raj Bahadur Rastogi S/o Late Shri Ram Bharose Lal R/o Mohalla Maya Kund, Room No. 165, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ………. Revisionist. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Shri Sher Singh, S/o Shri Charn Jeet Singh 3. Shri Jajja, S/o Shri Sher Singh All R/o Sugar Mill Road Doiwala, At present House No. 203 New Salempur Delhi. .…….Opposite parties. Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2002, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, in criminal case No. 165 of 1995, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/respondents Sher Singh and Jajja from the charge of offences punishable under section 323 and 504 of I.P.C. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the prosecution’s story on 11.07.1994, at about 3:00 p.m. accused/respondents Sher Singh and Jajja met the complainant Raj Bahadur Rastogi, in Tehri. It is alleged by the complainant that the two accused were ‘thugs’. Earlier the complainant had lodged a report in Rishikesh, due to which they had enmity against the complainant. On aforesaid date the two accused/respondents committed ‘marpeet’ with the complainant and insulted him. The complainant lodged first information report on the very day in respect of offences punishable under section 323 and 504 of I.P.C. dated 11.07.1994 at Police Station, Tehri. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against two accused Sher Singh and Jajja. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri, recorded the prosecution evidence in which P.W.1 Raj Bahadur Rastogi, P.W.2 Gyan Lal and P.W.3 Jagdish were examined. The evidence was put to the accused under 3 section 313 of Cr.P.C. No evidence was adduced. After hearing the parties the trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove charge against the accused/respondents Sher Singh and Jajja as such they were acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under section 323 and 504 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said order dated 05.02.2002, this revision has been filed by the complainant. 5. Perusal of the lower court shows that the trial court has noticed the contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. It has pointed out that one witness states that accused committed ‘marpeet’ with ‘fists’ and ‘kicks’ but another witness states that the accused had beaten with ‘saria’ (iron rod). No medical officer was got examined to prove the injuries on the person of the complainant. Apart from this trial court has taken note of the fact that one witness has stated that the incident had taken place at ‘bus stand’, New Tehri, while the complainant has disclosed the place of incident is Borari. 6. Having considered statement of the learned counsel for the revisionist and after going through papers on record, this Court is 4 of the view that it cannot be said that the trial court has adopted any wrong approach of law in appreciating the evidence or committed any illegality in acquitting the accused. That being so, this revision is without force, and liable to be dismissed. 7. The revision is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:21.04.2010 parul