1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT MANNALAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 387 OF 1998 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated August 13, 1997 of Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry matters) cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 248 of 1997 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from the charge punishable under sections 148, 307/149, 366, 452, and 323/149 IPC. Date of Order : March 20, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Mukesh Verma, for the petitioner. Mr. M.K.Kaushik, for the non-petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Mannalal, against the order dated August 13, 1997 of Special Judge (Women atrocities and Dowry matters) cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 248 of 1997 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from the charge punishable under sections 148, 307/149, 366, 452, and 323/149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2 November 17, 1994 the petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Chaksu regarding an incident taken place on that day at about 12 p.m. On the basis of the aforesaid report a case bearing FIR No.348 of 1994 for offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 363 and 366 IPC was registered and investigation was started. After completion of investigation charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 379, 452, 323 and 149 IPC was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District Jaipur who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur where from it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge ( Women Atrocities and Dowry Matters) Jaipur. The trial court after hearing arguments of both the sides framed charges under sections 148, 307/149, 366, 452 and 323/149 UPC, which accused respondents denied and claimed to be tried. The trial court examined as 3 many as 10 witnesses alon gwith certain documentary evidence in support of the prosecution case and accused respondents were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court after hearing arguments of both the parties vide its judgment dated August 13, 1997 acquitted the accused respondents form the charges levelled against them by giving benefit of doubt. Aggrieved against the order dated August 13, 1997, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offences charged 4 against them. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are 5 possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/