1 D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07 Uda v. State D.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1119/07 Uda vs. The State Date of Order : 14.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA,J. Mr. Ramesh Purohit for the petitioenr. Mr. V.R. Mehta, P.P. for the State. Mr. Manish Pithalia for the respondents no.2 and 3. ..... This D.B.Criminal Revision has been preferred by the complainant Uda s/o Gautam being aggrieved against the acquittal of respondents no.2 and 3 who have been acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera camp Badi-Sadari in Sessions Case No.4/2006 by the judgment dated 22.7.2006. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner submitted an oral report at Police station, Badi-Sadri on 14.1.2005 at 5.40 p.m. that in the evening at 4 p.m. on the same day he was in his agricultural field and his father was sitting at Bavaji-ka-Deora (a religious place). There, the accused Bheru Lal came and asked the complainant's father Gautam why he has taken the dung of she-buffalo and started beating victim Gautam. Accused Bheru Lal's son Uda also gave beating to victim Gautam. This incident was seen by some children who informed 2 D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07 Uda v. State the complainant. The complainant himself rushed to the place of incident and asked Udai Lal and Bheru Lal about the incident, then they told that the victim Gautam gave beating to his she- buffalo. At that time no other person was there. A case was registered under Sections 341 and 323/34, IPC. Subsequently, the victim died at 8 p.m. and thereafter, case was registered under Section 302, IPC. The prosecution produced witnesses who are PW-4 Suresh, PW-5 Uda @ Udai Lal, PW-6 Nathu Lal. PW-5 Uda and PW-6 Nathu Lal are the sons of victim whereas PW-4 Suresh is a boy of 15 years and who was grand-son of the victim. The trial court after going through all the evidence on record, observed that the only injury which was on the left side of the head of the victim was from blunt object and as per the prosecution case, it was by single blow of one lathi. One lathi was recovered from the accused but without having blood stains. The trial court held that the presence of all the three witnesses PW-4 Suresh, PW-5 Uda and PW-7 Nathu Lal have not been proved by the cogent and reliable evidence by the prosecution and none of the above witnesses saw the beating of the victim by the accused. The victim though died because of the injury on the head but that injury was minor injury and there was even no fracture of skull. The trial court also held that presence of the accused has not been proved by any reliable evidence by the 3 D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07 Uda v. State prosecution. The allegation of prosecution is that one of the accused Udai Lal gave beating by his fist and legs, whereas accused Udai Lal is totally handicapped by one leg and cannot walk without the help of crutches . If he would have tried to beat any body, he himself must have fallen. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that as per the medical report, the victim died because of the injury which he suffered on the head and there are three witnesses who supported the prosecution case. May they be closest relatives of the victim but their statements clearly proved the commission of offence by the accused. After going through all the evidence on record, we are of the view that there is no possibility of taking a different view than taken by the trial court. However, in revisional jurisdiction even otherwise view if can be taken by the revisional court from the view taken by the trial court even then the conviction cannot be altered and if there is possibility of two views then the view taken in favour of the accused prevails. We are also of the view that name of Suresh was not mentioned in the FIR nor the 4 D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07 Uda v. State complainant in the FIR stated that he himself saw the beating of the victim. That fact is relevant because of the fact that there is only one injury on the head of the victim who was of the age of 75 years. The place of incident is also not believed by the trial court. In view of the above reason, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. ( CHAND MAL TOTLA) ,J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt