1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Ram Sewak Sahu V/s. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.207/09 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401of Criminal Procedure Code Date of Judgment :: 09.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Smt. Manju Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Javed Chaudhary PP for the State. Mr. Tarun Jain for the respondent. The complainant petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.10.2004, at about 6:30 PM, the complainant petitioner, and Santra submitted a report at the Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur with regard to an incident which took place on the same day. According to the said report, while Santra was cutting seaseme 2 seed in her field, her husband went to drink water. At that time, Ramjilal and Om Prakash came to the field and tried to rape her. She tried to escape. Om Prakash and Ramji Lal hit her with a stick (Lathi) and broke her leg. Hearing her shouts, her husband rushed to her rescue. Thereafter, he lodged a report at the police station. The police registered an FIR, FIR No.173/04, for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 447 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 447 IPC against the accused respondents. The prosecution examined eight witness. The statement of accused respondents were recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. The accused respondents did not produce any evidence in their defense. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents from the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 447 IPC. Hence, this petition before this Court. Smt. Manju Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that despite the clear testimony of the injured, Santra, and of Ram Sewak, and despite the existence of the injury report of Santra which clearly shows that she had suffered a grievous injury on her leg, in spite of the testimony of Dr. Bajrang Lal Meena, (P.W. 4), still the learned Judge has acquitted the accused persons for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. On the other hand, Mr. Tarun Jain, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, has contended that the 3 cross case was registered arising out of the same incident which occurred on 15.10.2005 and in the case against Santra and Ram Sewak, they have been acquitted. Secondly after meticulously discussing the evidence, the learned Judge has legally and validly passed the impugned judgment. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has not discussed the testimony of injured, Santra and Ram Sewak. He has not considered the testimony of Dr. Bajrang Lal Meena, P.W.4 and has not dealt with the injuries which were caused to Santra. Therefore, he has failed to consider the evidence which were readily available on record. Instead, he has considered the evidence with regard to the place of occurrence. After concluding that the place of occurrence is unclear, he has acquitted the respondents for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. It is beyond the imagination of this Court as to how the accused respondents could be acquitted for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC on the ground that the place of occurrence is unclear. Since the learned Judge has failed to consider the evidence readily available on record, this Court has no other option but to remand the case back. Hence, the judgment dated 06.12.2008 is quashed 4 and set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Judge with the direction to re-assess the evidence with regard to the offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. The learned Judge is expected to re-assess the evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With these observations, the petition is allowed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/