1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SMT. TAHIRA VS. KUTUBUDDIN AND OTHERS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 430 of 2002 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 19, 2002 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Tonk in Case No. 145 of 2000 whereby he acquitted accused non-petitioners for the offence under sections 323, 325 and 341 IPC. Date of Order : April 10, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Ms. Rekha Arora for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Tahira, against the order dated March 19, 2002 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Tonk in Case No. 145 of 2000 whereby he acquitted the accused non- petitioners for the offence under sections 323, 325 and 341 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at 7.00 a.m. on September 19, 2000 when complainant Tahira making tea at her 2 residence then non-petitioners came and gave beating to her. A written report was submitted to police Station Piplu on 19.9.2000 itself. On the basis of the written report the police registered FIR No. 124 of 2000 against the non- petitioners under sections 323 and 341 IPC. During investigation injury report was prepared by the investigating agency and section 325 read with section 34 IPC was also added. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the non- petitioners for the offence under sections 323, 341 and 2325 read with section 34 IPC before the trial court. The trial court framed charge against the non-petitioners for the above offences. The accused non-petitioners denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 8 witnesses and also produced relevant documents. The statements of non-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and they did not examine any evidence in defence. 3 After hearing arguments the trial court acquitted the accused non-petitioners for the offences under sections 323, 341 and 324 read with section 34 IPC vide judgment dated March 19, 2002. Hence this revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal by the petitioner complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below acquitted the non-petitioners on the ground that the executor of Tehriri report Ex. P.1 was not examined by the prosecution. The complainant specifically stated that non-petitioner caused the injuries mentioned in medical report. The version of the complainant is corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Gyanendra Bansal PW.5 and Babulal Radiologist PW.9 proved the injuries as well as x-ray report of Smt. Tahira, therefor the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4 4. 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 prosecution witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 who were eye witnesses of the incident declared hostile and there is no other evidence except the evidence of PW.1 who herself submitted the written report. The trial court in its judgment held that the complainant herself in her statement admitted that she handed over a written report to the police and the same was 5 given back to her. In these circumstance there is every chance of change of version in the complaint which was lodged after 24 hours of the incident and the trial court did not rely on such report and given the benefit of doubt to the accused non- petitioners. 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 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/