1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Girdhari Vs. State of Raj. & others. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.561/2004. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 29th August, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Pratap Singh Sirohi for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. Mr. Anurag Sharma for the respondents. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 18.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No.635/1998 (559/2002) by which the accused non-petitioners Lala @ Mahendra and Dayanand were acquitted from the offence under sections 323, 341 and 394 IPC. For the disposal of the present revision petition, the necessary facts are that on 3.4.1998, PW-1 Girdhari Lal lodged a written report in the police station Karauli with the averments that on the day of incident in the night at about 10.30 p.m., while his brother and nephew Suka @ Chandra Prakash after closing the shop were going towards their house, his nephew was having a 2 small bag in his hand containing gold and silver ornaments and when they reached near the old range street at that time, the accused namely Lala @ Mahendra and Dayanand from behind inflicted a saria blow on his person as a result of which he fell down. The accused took away the bag containing gold and silver ornaments. On this report FIR No.156/98 was registered in the police station and after investigation charge-sheet was filed for the offence under sections 323, 341 and 394 IPC. A charge under section 394, 344 and 323 IPC was framed against the accused- non-petitioners to which they denied. In all nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case and ten documents were tendered in evidence. In the statement, the accused denied their involvement in the case. In defence evidence two witnesses, namely Mukesh and Murari were produced. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides acquitted the accused from the charge under section 394, 341 and 323 IPC for the reasons, firstly that the statement of Suka @ Chandra Prakash was not reliable for the purpose of proving guilt of the accused non-petitioners, secondly that in the instant case no recovery was effected and thirdly the eye witness in the case did not support the prosecution case. The contention of the learned counsel that in the instant case sufficient material was brought on record to prove the guilt of the accused persons but the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence is not liable to be accepted for the simple reason that the eye witness in the case namely Nizam 3 has not supported the prosecution case. In other evidence, PW-1 Girdhari Lal, PW-3 Dinesh and PW-4 Trilok are the witnesses who have not seen the incident and their evidence is hear say evidence. No recovery in this case has been made. There appears no corroboration of the statement of PW-2 injured. The learned trial court has discussed the matter in detail and recorded the finding of acquittal against the accused-respondents. After carefully examining the evidence adduced in the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court which may require interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction. As per defence evidence, even presence of the accused becomes doubtful. In view of the above discussed position of facts there does not appear any merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)