Criminal Revision No. 1123 of 2004 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1123 of 2004 Date of decision January 28, 2008 Jagdish .....Petitioner Versus Bhambu @ Amar Nath and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The complainant is in revision before this Court against the judgment dated August 22, 2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the accused have been acquitted in FIR No. 95 dated March 22, 1999 registered under Sections 379, 506 IPC read with Section 3(i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station, Hodel. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 379, 506 IPC and 3 (i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention o Atrocities) Act, 1989. After completing trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad acquitted the accused on appreciation of evidence as the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during investigation accused Bhambu @ Amar Nath admitted before the Police authority that he had committed the offence. However, such a disclosure does not have any value whatsoever. Infact on appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Court below found that the case was a result of rivalry between two parties where the complainant was a front man, who did not even know where he had lodged the complaint. The complaint was given by him to the Superintendent of Police, who had endorsed the same to the Criminal Revision No. 1123 of 2004 -2- *** S.H.O., Police Station, Hodel for registration of a case and investigation. However, in his examination in chief, complainant stated that complaint was made to the SHO. Further, the evidence led by the prosecution also did not support the case set up as substantial discrepancies were found in the prosecution version. He could not prove even the fact in whose presence, he was called ‘Chamar Dhedh’. This Court would not like to re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different finding as recorded by the learned Court below merely because a second view is possible. There is no material on record, which could lead to the conclusion that view expressed by the Court below was not possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. January 28, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge