1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Rohitash Vs. Mohar Singh & another. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.553/2005. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 27th August, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Sunit Awasthi for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated dated 23.3.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.28/2001 by which the accused non-petitioner No.1 Mohar Singh has been acquitted from the offence under sections 454, 380 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has committed serious illegality in acquitting the accused from the offence under sections 454, 380 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') vide judgment dated 23.3.2005. It is further contended that the learned trial court has misread the evidence led by the parties. From the perusal of the evidence 2 produced, it was amply proved that the prosecution was able to prove its case. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that a reasoned order has been passed an the learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made before me and perused the material available on record. For the disposal of this revision petition, facts are that on 4.8.1994 complainant Rohitash lodged a written report in the police station Kotputli with the averments that at his back Mohar Singh and his friends broke-up the lock of his shop and took away the tyre-tubes of the truck kept in the shop. It was also stated that prior to lodging of this complaint on previous occasion i.e. in the year 1991 the accused-respondent got broken the lock of his shop. It was also alleged that the complainant being a member of SC/ST community, he was abused at public place. FIR was registered and the case was enquired and after investigation final report was given. On filing protest petition and recording statements under section 200 Cr.P.C., cognizance against the accused-respondent was taken under sections 454, 380 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined in all three witnesses and some documents were tendered. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied his 3 involvement in the case and submitted three documents in defence evidence. The learned trial court examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the statement of the prosecution witnesses were not reliable and the accused-respondent was liable to be acquitted giving benefit of doubt, therefore, acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 23.3.2005. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. It is to be seen that in the instant case that the police after investigation at the initial stage reached to the conclusion that no offence was committed by the accused-respondent and submitted a final report. Subsequently, during the course of trial, the learned trial court after considering the evidence brought on record and the documents reached to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion that in the statements recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements recorded by the police, there is variance on material points. The learned trial court further found that the evidence was shaky in nature, therefore, acquitted the accused-respondent. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence in detail for the simple reason that the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence led in the case and the finding recorded by the learned trial court suffers from no legal infirmity. The position of law is also settled on the point that normally the courts should be slow in interfering with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below unless it is found that the 4 findings recorded are perverse in nature. As discussed above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as having no merit. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)