IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No.19-MA of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 05, 2011 Chander Pati .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Badlu Ram & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the applicant- petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 9.10.2010 vide which the Special Judge, Jind, has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 323, 354, 294 IPC and Section 3(ii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The reasons assigned for acquittal of the respondents are that Narender son of Ram Kishan and Ashok son of Kitaba were arrested by the accused in discharge of their official duties. The petitioner-complainant went to get them released which Crl. Misc. No.19-MA of 2011 [2] benefit was not given by the police officials. The relationship between Ashok and Narender with the complainant is admitted. The statement of complainant has been supported by Kitaba, father of Ashok, who is also an interested witness. PW-2, Om Nath Nagar is also an interested witness as he is related to the complainant. 3. The defence has produced DW-1 Krishan Kumar, DW-3 Dhup Singh and DW-4 Suraj Mal who have stated that they alongwith other persons had gone to the police station in connection with disappearance of the son of Badlu Ram. Ashok and Narender had been taken in custody. The complainant was not with them and the incident as alleged had not occurred. 4. The reason for acquittal, essentially, is that the police officials did not release the persons taken in custody even though complainant exerted her influence as Sarpanch. One opinion has been formulated by the Trial Court that is based on appreciation of evidence. In appeal against acquittal, same is not required to be interfered with as the judgment of acquittal is not found to be perverse. 5. No ground for interference is called for. 6. Dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 05, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Crl. Misc. No.19-MA of 2011 [3] 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?