Babu Lal vs Bhoma Ram and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—This Criminal Revision petition has been filed u/s 397 readwith Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure against the order-dated 30,4.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa (for short the learned trial Court'') in Criminal Case No. 126/1991 by which he has acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences under Sections 147, 323/149, 341, 382/149 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on 1st of February 1991, complainant Babulal lodged a first information report at Police Station Sethal. Upon the said report, a case under Sections 147, 323 and 382 IPC was registered by the police and investigation commenced.

Thereafter, the police filed a challan against the accused-respondents.

Thereafter the charge against the accused-respondents under Sections 323/149, 147, 341 and 382/149 IPC have been framed and same has been explained to the accused-respondents who denied for the same and claimed for trial.

In support of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents.

Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded.

After hearing both the side, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges framed against them by its order of acquittal dated 30th of April 2001.

Against the said order, the petitioner-complainant has filed this revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper manner, hence the judgment of the trial Court be quashed and set aside. He has further draw the attention of this Court upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses and submits that the learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has acquitted the accused-respondents.

On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses and rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges framed against them and no interference is required in the judgment delivered by the trial Court dated 30th of April 2001.

To support his case, he has further draw the attention of this Court in a case of Umrao v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 (10) SC 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."

In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed after confirming the judgment dated 30th of April 2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa.