- (1.) THE Registry has pointed out a defect that petition is delayed by fourteen days, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is without any affidavit. But, even on merit, the case stands on a weak wicket.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 09.01.2007, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.2, Babu Lal, for offences under Sections 323 and 379 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.02.1999, the complainant, Babu Lal (PW-1), filed a complainant against the accused-respondent, Babu Lal, and Hanif Mohammad, before the learned Magistrate. In the complaint, he claimed that on 02.06.1993, accused-respondent, Babu Lal and his father came to his shop and closed the shutter and thereby restrained the complainant from approaching his shop. With regard to this incident, the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Mantown. Since the uncle of the accused-respondent, Babu Lal, was posted at the same Police Station, therefore, the police did not register a FIR. Again on 06.02.1999, the accused-respondent, Babu Lal, Hanif and one another person came to his shop and threatened him to withdraw the complaint. When, the complainant refused to do so, the accused-persons assaulted the complainant's sons, and took away Mohan Lal;s wrist watch. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station, Mantown. The police registered a FIR, FIR No.57/1999. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report. Aggrieved by the negative final report, the complainant filed a protest petition. Vide order dated 21.11.2001, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against Babu Lal under Sections 323 and 379 IPC. On 06.01.2004, the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the accused-respondent, Babu Lal. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. On the other hand, the defence neither examined any witnesses, nor submitted any documents. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 09.01.2007, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent No.2. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent, Babu Lal, for offence under Section 323 IPC. For, according to both the injured-persons, Babu Lal was involved in the commission of the offence. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence to prove the commission of offence under Section 379 IPC, yet the learned Magistrate has acquitted Babu Lal of the said offence. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that there are glaring contradictions in the testimonies of both the injured-person, Mohan Lal (PW-2) and Mukesh (PW-4). While Mukesh (PW-4) claims that Babu Lal had hit him, Mohan Lal (PW-2) claims that Babu Lal was standing about fifteen feet away from the place of the incident. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that there are no injury reports of either of the two injured persons. Thus, their oral testimonies are not corroborated by any documentary evidence. Hence, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in acquitting Babu Lal for offence under Section 323 IPC.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate has also noticed the fact that none of the witnesses claim that Babu Lal had taken away the wrist watch. All of them claim that they heard that Babu Lal had done so. Since it was a hear-say evidence, obviously the same could not be believed. Moreover, even the recovery of the said watch is under cloud. Hence, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in acquitting the petitioner of both the offences. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.;