1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 80 of 1995 Date of Decision: 21.8.2009 *** Krishan .. Petitioner Vs. Ishwar Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. O.S. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is questioning the legality of judgment dated 9.4.1994 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal by dint of which the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. This petition was filed way back in the year 1995. During preliminary hearing, the petition came up for hearing before the Bench on 8.5.1995, but none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the following order was passed:- “No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. It is 2.25 PM. Adjourned sine die to be listed only when the counsel for the petitioner furnishes undertaking that he will appear in this court on the date fixed in the case.” For all these longs years, nothing was done for and on behalf of the petitioner and the file kept lying in the records of the Registry, awaiting needful from the side of the petitioner. It is only on 4.5.2009, due to the interference of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, such like matters were ordered to be listed before the Bench. Consequently, the instant petition and similarly situated cases have been listed for hearing. 2 Today, Mr. O.S. Panwar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He has failed to satisfactorily answer the query made by this Court as to what the petitioner did during these years. Such a callous approach adopted by the petitioner is strongly condemned. Anyhow, this Court has gone through the impugned judgment with the assistance of counsel for the petitioner and of the considered view that no ground to interfere therewith is made out. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced two eye witnesses/ injured namely Ram Chander and Krishan during the trial, but both of them were found closely related to each other being brothers. No independent corroboration was there to prove the alleged offence. With-holding of other eye witnesses namely Bhara and Ramo also lead the Court below to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. Further the inconsistent ocular and medical evidence, non-examination of the investigating officer and the fact that the parties were having previous enmity, were also the relevant factors which impressed upon the learned trial Court to acquit the respondent. There is very limited scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It can not be said that the findings of acquittal rendered by the Court below are either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. In the circumstances, the instant revision petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 21,2009 Jiten