1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT BRIJENDRA SINGH VS. RAMJILAL AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 42 of 2002 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated December 15, 2001 of Judicial Magistrate Khandar in Case No. 194 of 2000 whereby he acquitted accused non- petitioners for the offence under sections 447, 323, and 326 read with section 34 IPC. Date of Order : April 16, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Ms. R.K.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Biri Singh for the accused non-petitioners. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Brijendra Singh, against the order dated December 15, 2001 of Judicial Magistrate Khandar in Case No. 194 of 2000 whereby he acquitted accused non- petitioners for the offence under sections 447, 323, and 326 read with section 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at 2.10 p.m. On September 1, 2000 Brijendra Singh with a written along with injury 2 report and ex-ray report, reached Police Station Bahawarnda stating that some miscreants collectively in order to beat him came at his field having lathis, gandasi, favda khurfa and othere weapons. Ramjilal gave blow on his hand by gandasi whereas Moti gave blow on his head by lathi. Other persons also gave blows and caught hold of him. On this report the police registered FIR No. 65 of 2000 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 447 and 379 IPC. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused non-petitioners Ramjilal and Moti under sections 447, 323, 325 read with section 34 IPC. The trial court on January 24, 2001 framed charge against the accused petitioners for the offence under sections 447, 323 and 326 read with section 34 IPC. The prosecution in support of its case produced 15 witnesses and produced 10 documents. The statements of accused non- petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.c. were recorded and they produced two witnesses 3 in defence and further produced 11 documents. They also produced certified copy of the judgment of Judicial Magistrate in Criminal case No. 179 of 2000. After hearing both the parties the trial court acquitted the accused non- petitioners for the offence under sections 447, 323, 326 read with section 34 IPC. Against this judgment of acquittal the complainant filed this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence is available against the accused petitioners for convicting them and the delay which is shown is illegal. The injured was busy in getting his treatment therefore delay if any was excusable. The eye witnesses proved the injuries received by the injured corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus the order acquitting the accused non-petitioners is liable to be set aside. 4 4. 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. I have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court in its judgment held that the FIR was lodged with delay and there were reasons to disbelieve it on account of lodging it with delay. The witnesses have not proved the injuries received by the injured. The medical examination was done after three days of the incident. Two witnesses PW.5 and PW.7 were cited as the main witnesses 5 who had seen the incident, but both of them contradict about their presence at the place of incident. Thus the order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. 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/