1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1879 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.11.2009 *** Sunil Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay condoned. Respondents No.2 and 3 were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari for an offence under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC in case FIR No. 314 dated 25.8.1998,, P.S. Jagadhari, got registered by the petitioner. The learned trial court acquitted the respondents on conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment dated 9.3.2007. Dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioner though preferred a revision before the Court of Session, but the same was dismissed being not maintainable. Hence, the petitioner is preferring the instant revision petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the paper book, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground to interfere with the acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3 is made out. Non- proving the genesis of occurrence; contradictory version with no specific attribution of the private respondents coupled with the facts that there was no independent corroboration to the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution failed to show the injuries being sustained by the accused, were the vital factors, taken into consideration by the trial Court while acquitting the private respondents by observing that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal 2 unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, the instant revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 13,2009 Jiten