SBCRRP825/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.825/2010 Lalaram @ Lekhram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 18.08.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Ashvin Garg, Counsel for petitioner Shri Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor #### By the Court:- This revision petition has been filed by the complainant challenging acquittal of accused Sahun by the judgment of the trial court dated 08.06.2010. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that acquittal recorded by the trial court is contrary to the material available on the record inasmuch as the judgment suffers from number of infirmities and perversities. Accused-party was responsible for the incident and it was aggressor because it was they who stopped the complainant-petitioner and snatched his motorcycle and started beating with him. The petitioner also sustained injuries. If the accused-respondent No.2 sustained injuries, the same can be said to SBCRRP825/2010 // 2 // have caused in exercise of right of private defence. The learned trial court failed to appreciate the statements of prosecution witnesses in its true perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statements of PW-2 Dayal and PW-3 Dharam Singh, who are the eye witnesses but their statements have not been believed. Offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC was fully made out. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar, passed in Sessions Case No.44/2008. The learned trial court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused-respondent because in this case it found that it could not be proved whether any injury was received by the petitioner herein; no injury report was produced on record nor any medical officer was got examined. It was found by the trial court that the FIR in the present case was lodged two days after the FIR in the cross-case was lodged by the accused against the petitioner and that too with a view to create a defence. The learned trial court also relied upon the statements of PW-3 Dharam Singh, PW-4 Ramkaran and PW-5 Harisingh and held that the story, as SBCRRP825/2010 // 3 // has been disclosed by the complainant, has not been supported by them. Similarly the statement of PW-2 Dayal was also examined by the trial court, which did not prove the alleged offence against the respondent. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//