1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SMT. PUNNI DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 302 OF 2000 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 31, 2000 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 1001 of 1997 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offences under sections 452, 341, 323, 325, 354,352, and 336 IPC. Date of Order : March 20, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Vijay Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Saini, for the non-petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Punni Devi, against the order dated March 31, 2000 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 1001 of 1997 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offences under sections 452, 341, 323, 325, 354,352, and 336 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. 2 Punni Devi and Ganga Devi on July 23, 1996 lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali Sawai Madhopur. Upon the aforesaid report the police registered a case for offences under sections 341, 323, and 336 IPC. After investigation, the police filed challan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences under sections 341, 323, 336, 325, 354, and 452 IPC. On January 9, 1997, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has framed charge against the accused respondents for the offences under sections 452, 341, 323, 325, 354, 352, and 336 IPC. The same were read over to the accused respondents and the accused respondents denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the case was transferred to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur for trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses and got exhibited six documents. The statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the parties 3 the trial court acquitted the accused respondents from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated March 31, 2000. Against this order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for offences charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. The learned counsel contended that the trial court without recording the statement of doctor closed the prosecution evidence. Dr.P.C.Gupta who, examined the injuries of injured petitioner and her injured daughter, but the summons of doctor P.C. Gupta were sent in the name of Dr. R.C. Gupta and on the summons the police reported that there is 4 no doctor in the name of Dr. R.C.Gupta. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offences charged against them. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. 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 court below 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 court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The learned counsel submitted that 5 number of opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce the doctor P.C. Gupta but inspite of that Dr. P.C. Gupta was not produced as a witness. The accused respondents are facing trial for the last 14 years approximately which tantamount to mental agony for these 14 years. 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. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/