IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2842 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2011 Mohan Lal .. Petitioner Vs. Kirpa Ram and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the order of acquittal dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. Heard, as per ocular version, Kirpa Ram inflicted lathi blow on the right hand of the petitioner- complainant (herein referred as, 'the complainant'). In the meantime, Sajjan Ram came there carrying gandasi and Kirpa Ram took the gandasi from him and inflicted another blow towards the petitioner which fell on the sheet (chadar) worn by him. Thereafter Ram Naraian and his wife Bhari came there and inflicted lathi blows on the shoulder and the back of the petitioner. The medical evidence reveals that there are four injuries on the person of the petitioner. Though Kirpa Ram has been attributed one gandasi blow on the head of the petitioner Mohan Lal, yet there is no mention that the gandasi was used from blunt side, therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was used from the sharp side particularly when he kept the blunt weapon and took this sharp edged weapon from Sajjan Ram but no incised wound was found on the head of Mohan Lal. Similarly, Bhari and Ram Narian, are stated to have caused injuries with the lathi on the shoulders and back but no injury has Crl. Revision No. 2842 of 2009 -2- *** been shown to have been caused on the shoulder and it is not clear as to who had caused injuries on the hip joint out of these two persons, namely, Bhari and Ram Naraian. As such, the medical evidence is contradictory with the ocular version. Even otherwise, the revisional powers of this court for interference in the order of acquittal are very limited in nature and could be used only in cases where some illegality or perversity has been detected. It is also equally well settled that if two views are possible then the view favourable to the accused would be accepted. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. August 24, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge