IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 126 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.09.2011 Bala Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 31.8.2009 awarding an acquittal to the accused namely Nand Lal and his sons Pankaj and Rinku @ Rakesh. All of them have been implicated for having committed an offence under Section 363, 366, 120-B, 376 IPC. While determining the issue raised before it, learned trial Court concluded that as per the statement of the prosecutrix the said accused persons namely Nand Lal and his sons namely Pankaj and Rinku @ Rakesh were said to have consumed tea with her and other family members of the accused Nand Lal on 25.11.2008. The prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution and so far as the other allegations of having conspired and actively taking part in the commission of offence under Section 363, 366, 120-B IPC, the prosecutrix has only testified against Raju @ Kalia. It is settled proposition of law that the evidence of the Crl. Rev. No. 126 of 2010 (O&M) 2 prosecutrix if inspiring is to be accepted and in the absence of the prosecutrix making any allegation against the said accused persons and further in the absence of any other material from which it could be inferred that they were involved under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC. I am of the opinion that impugned judgment does not warrant any interference so far as the accused persons named above are concerned. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 23.09.2011 JUDGE reena