Cr Rev 255/03 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Criminal Revision Petition No.255/2003 Ramavtar Das Versus State, Kaluram & (3) Ors Date of Order ::: 13/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Ms. Anita Jain, for petitioner (complainant) Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor. Instant petition has been filed by complainant against judgment dt.21/01/03 in Cr. Case No.87/97 whereby Judl. Magistrate Thanagazi (Alwar) acquitted respondents 2 to 4 from the offences U/Ss 447 & 435, IPC. Petitioner submitted a written report on 18/03/97 inter-alia stating that respondents 2 to 4 entered into his field and put fire to 100 mound mustard. FIR-35/97 was registered at P.S Thanagazi (Alwar). After investigation, challan was filed against respondents 2 to 4 and cognizance of offence U/s 447 & 435, IPC was taken. During trial prosecution in all examined seven witnesses out of which Budh Singh (Pw3), Chhajuram (Pw5) & Madanlal (Pw6) are allegedly eye witnesses of the incident; other witnesses, Gopal Singh (Pw2) & Chhaganlal (Pw4) have completely denied the fact about the accused being entered into the field and putting fire, if any to the mustard lying in the field. Madanlal (Pw6) was declared hostile, inasmuch as Cr Rev 255/03 //2// in defence evidence of Kaluram (Dw1), it was alleged that three days prior to the incident on 14/03/97 written report was also submitted by him in which Budh Singh (Pw3) & Chhajuram (Pw5) both were implicated as accused. Taking note of material on record, learned trial Judge recorded a finding that there was no independent eye witness of alleged incident and both, Budh Singh (Pw3) and Chhajuram (Pw5) were interested witnesses and only three days prior to present incident, FIR was also registered against them at the behest of Kaluram (Dw1) and that being so, holding that prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt against them nor there was evidence on record against accused respondents and finally acquitted them of the offences (supra) vide judgment impugned. This Court has considered contentions of Counsel for complainant. After perusal of impugned judgment, which recorded finding of fact about innocence of accused respondents based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by courts below which may call for interference. Consequently revision petition is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/255CrRev03acq.doc