In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1815 of 2002 Date of decision: February 26, 2009 Ved Pal ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, AAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition (preferred by a private party) is the judgment dated 1.5.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, acquitting the accused-respondents (herein referred as “the respondent”) of the charges framed against them. In brief, the facts of the present case are that on 5.2.1999, Santosh-complainant got her statement recorded to the effect that on 4.2.1994, she along with her sister Darshana, father Ved Pal, mother Nahno and Ved Pal son of Kehar Singh went to village Mundasa on account of anniversary of Krishan. When they reached the village, Karamvir, Satbir, Devi Ram, Satwan sons of Badlu Ram, Prem wife of Satbir Singh, Sujani wife of Badlu Ram and Rup Chand met and told them that they were attacked by Badlu Ram with lathi. All the accused were armed with jellies and lathies. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigation commenced. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Crl. Revision No. 1815 of 2002 -2- *** On trial, the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same does not suffer from any irregularity much less illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The testimony of Ved Pal suffers from material improvements. He has not described about the weapons which the accused were wielding and who caused which injury. The complainant has also not been examined. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that in case of acquittal, if two views are possible, then the view taken by the trial court in favour of the accused should be accepted. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. (A.N. Jindal) Judge February 26, 2009 deepak