CRR No. 1480 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1480 of 2010(O&M) Decided on:- 05.07.2011 Gurcharan Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba Present: Mr. N.S.Malmajra, Advocate for the petitioner. MS. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. **** Ajai Lamba, J(Oral) CRM No.27524 of 2010 Delay of 78 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. CRM stands allowed. CRR No. 1480 of 2010 This revision petition is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.2009 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The trial Magistrate had convicted the respondents for commission of offence under Sections 323/`149, 324/149, 148 and 506 IPC. The accused went up in appeal. The appeal has been accepted vide the impugned judgment. PW1 injured/eye witness has been dis believed on the ground that she could not prove the place of occurrence; she denied having any knowledge of earlier FIR bearing No. 410 dated 8.12.2004, under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC pending against the father-in-law of the complainant, her husband and sons prior to the occurrence; PW1 did not admit the presence of her own relatives namely her brother-in-law and his wife. Conduct of the CRR No. 1480 of 2010(O&M) 2 complainant PW1 has been visualized by the lower appellate Court as being that of concealment and suppression of material facts so that it would not be shown as a case in counter blast. The revisional Court has no reason to record a finding otherwise. So far as the injuries are concerned, three injuries were found on the person of PW1 namely one lacerated wound on the right hand and two abrasion on left foot and right fore arm. The lower appellate Court has dealt with the issue and found the material witnesses to be not trust worthy. There is no material to record a finding otherwise. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any evidence that was material, however, has not been dealt with by the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel further has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any piece of evidence that has not been considered while recording finding of acquittal. In revisional jurisdiction, no ground for interference has been made out. Petition dismissed. 05.07.2011 ( Ajai Lamba) mamta Judge