IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Court No. Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2001 (Old No. 838/1987) Dr. Devendra Pratap Durga Pal …………….... Revisionist. Vs. Murali Manohar Singh and others …………..Respondents. Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J. None appeared for the revisionist. Heard Sri G.S.Sandhu learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision was filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 18-4-1987 passed by the then C.J.M. Almora in criminal case No. 233/1986 whereby the respondents 1 to 4 were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 3. Having gone through the material on record It is evidence that the evidence of the complainant D.P. Durgapal (P.W.1) about altercation at the hospital where he was serving was not supported by any medical evidence. Two witnesses of the incident namely Ram Lal ( P.W.2) and Khadak Singh ( P.W.3) were also examined but their evidence was also not found reposing confidence for their credibility and therefore no reliance was placed on their testimony by the learned Magistrate. According to the prosecution version the respondent-accused 1 to 4 have come to the dispensary where the said complainant was posted and started quarrelling with him on the pretext that the complainant was not keeping his wife respondent No.4 with him. The other respondents are relations of the said respondent and they came there to espouse her cause. In the cross examination of the complainant letter written by him, Ex.Kha 1 was produced wherein some reference about alliance with the said lady was made by the said complainant. The learned Magistrate has taken into account this aspect of the matter to observe that the complainant got aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents and filed the F.I.R. against them for the same reason. 4- In the cross examination the complainant failed to name the patient who was examined by him at the time of occurrence and therefore the evidence of Khadak Singh (P.W.3) who is alleged to have brought his wife before the said doctor-complainant can not be said to be trust-worthy and therefore the learned Magistrate made no error in disbelieving his evidence also. Ram Lal (P.W.2) was not the patient who was examined by the complainant-doctor at that time and therefore he was also not the natural witness of the occurrence. The facts as brought on record from the cross-examination of the witnesses and particularly the complainant-doctor reveal that there was dispute in regard to the acceptance of the said lady as the wife by the complainant and that the report against the respondent-accused was merely lodged to put pressure on them and harass them by subjecting them to criminal prosecution. 5- Considering these aspects it can not be safely said that the proper appraisal of the evidence was not made by the learned Magistrate. There being no perversity in the appraisal of the evidence by the learned Magistrate, the revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (Irshad Hussain, J.) Dated 20-10-2003 ISB