1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT JAGDISH VS. DEVLAL AND OTHERS SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 220 of 2000 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated August 4, 1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Criminal Case No. 259 of1993 whereby the accused have been acquitted from offence under sections 148, 325 and323 IPC. Date of Order : March 20, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. S.R.Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Sharma, for the non-petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Jagdish, against the order dated August 4, 1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Criminal Case No. 259 of1993 whereby the accused have been acquitted from offence under sections 148, 325 and 323 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on July 17, 1992 the petitioner lodged a written report stating therein that in the 2 night at 2, accused persons came to his field and demolished the boundary wall of the field. The accused persons attacked on them with deadly weapons. On this report the police registered case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 325 and 307 IPC. After due investigation charge sheet was filed in the court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and on October 19, 1993 the Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused from offence under section 307 IPC and remanded the case under section 228 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate vide order dated November 30, 1995 framed charge of sections 148, 323 and 325 IPC and the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited about 24 documents. In their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution case. The trial court heard the arguments and vide judgment dated August 4, 1999 acquitted the accused 3 persons. Hence this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for offences charged against them. The trial court while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. The learned counsel contended that the trial court has fallen into an error in acquitting the accused respondents. It was submitted that each and every witness of the prosecution as well as the medical evidence go to suggest commission of offence by the accused respondents. The doctor has corroborated the injuries sustained by the injured persons and the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the complainant had been brushed aside otherwise there was no occasion for acquittal of the accused 4 respondents. The doctor opined regarding injury of Ramdhan that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and he had sustained fracture of lower 1/3rd of tibia and fibula bone. Hence the judgment of the trial court be be set aside. 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 trial court 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 trial court, which is based on proper reasonings. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the trial court is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the 5 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 possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. For these reasons the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/