SBCr.RP NO.77/2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.77/2007. Rajendra Singh Vs. Karan Singh and others Date of order : 19/3/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Dinesh Yadav for the complainant-petitioner. Shri B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for complainant- petitioner. 2) This revision petition has been filed at the instance of the complainant against the part of the judgment dated 15/7/2006 whereby the learned trial court while convicting all the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, acquitted them for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 IPC. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that inspite of the fact that prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 Jugal Kishore, PW-8 Banwari have stated that accused respondent Dinesh fired with Katta, he has been acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC. It was argued that katta in question was recovered in cross case and recovery memo of that case was very much on record in the present case as Ex.P.17. Learned SBCr.RP NO.77/2007. 2 counsel argued that there are only minor contractions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial court has wrongly given the benefit of doubt to the accused respondents in so far as offence of which they have been acquitted. It has been argued that sanction for the prosecution of accused respondent Dinesh under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was also issued by the District Collector. Even then, the learned trial court illegally acquitted him from that charge. Learned counsel thus argued that impugned-order passed by the learned trial court be set-aside. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, I find that the learned trial court on detailed analysis of the evidence has found offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC proved against the accused respondents and convicted them for these offences and acquitted them of rest of the offences. There are in all three injured namely; Rajendra having simple injuries, Jugal one injury and Arun having seven injuries and all these injuries were simple in nature. It is not born out from the record that any of the injury whatsoever has been at the instance of Dinesh was caused either by the fire arm or by any other arm. The sanction of the prosecution accorded by the District Collector was also examined by the learned trial court while considering statement of PW-18, Rajeev Singh, District Magistrate who while sanctioning the prosecution, neither examined SBCr.RP NO.77/2007. 3 the case diary nor did he enquire from the investigation officer as to which katta was recovered from accused respondent Dinesh. In the present case, neither katta has been recovered at the instance of Dinesh nor the recovery of the katta has been shown in the present case. In other case, though katta has been recovered, but such recovery has been shown at the instance of Karan Singh and not from Dinesh. Recovery memo in another case possibly could not be relied on for convicting an accused in the present case, more particularly when there is no corroborating evidence on record to suggest that any injury whatsoever was suffered by any of the members of the complainant party by use of such fire arm. Statements of the prosecution witnesses who alleged use of firm arm have been in my view rightly not believed by the trial court and I do not find any error therein. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-