- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2009 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur, Head Quarter Bayana, acquitting the accused-Respondents No. 2 to 7 from the charges under Sections 120-B, 148, 447, 451, 323/149, 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. Registry has reported that revision petition is barred by 496 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. There are three paras in the application, which are reproduced as under: "1. That because of verdict of Village Panchayat the petitioner applicant was under the pressure and scared to approach the Hon'ble Court for such a long period but with a passage of time the vigor of Panchayat has reduced and the petitioner could also gather the courage to knock the doors of justice and has approached this Hon'ble Court after a passage of some time. 2. That the petitioner applicant and other family members of the deceased were under pressure and misled by the panchayat as well as by the accused persons that's why they had approached the Hon'ble Court earlier. 3. That the delay occurred by the petitioner applicant in filing the aforesaid criminal revision petition is bona-fide and unintentional." The above explanation furnished by the petitioner for condonation of delay reveals that neither date of judgment nor date of knowledge of judgment and other facts to explain the delay have been mentioned by the petitioner so as to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing revision petition. Explanation furnished by the petitioner in above paras does not constitute sufficient cause so as to condone the delay of 496 days in filing revision petition. In these circumstances, revision petition is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. Apart from above, we have examined the matter on merits. Written Report, Exhibit P-20 was lodged by injured eye-witness, P.W. 5, Sitaram at Police Station Roopbas, wherein apart from other facts and allegations it was stated that Jagmohan inflicted a gun shot injury on the person of deceased Anil. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge sheet in three phases against accused-respondents No. 2 to 7. All cases were consolidated. During trial of the case, injured eye-witness, P.W. 5 Sitaram and other two eye-witnesses, P.W. 2 Ramesh and P.W. 3 Raju @ Rajendra were declared hostile by the prosecution. Other prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 Bablu, P.W.7 Ram Singh, P.W.8 Rajeev, P.W.9 Om Prakash, P.W. 10 Krishan Kant Sharma, P.w. 11 Rameshwar were also declared hostile by the prosecution. The above factual aspect of the case has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is wife of deceased Anil and even if she was not eye-witness to the incident, she should have been examined during trial in support of prosecution case, as her statement was also recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner fairly and frankly admitted that the petitioner was not eye-witness to the incident. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that it is for the prosecution/Public Prosecutor to examine or not to examine any witness out of list of witnesses produced alongwith charge sheet. It is also relevant to mention that as per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner trial against main accused Jagmohan, who is said to have inflicted gun shot injury on the person of deceased, is still pending wherein the petitioner may move an application to examine herself in support of prosecution case. So far as present case is concerned, since injured eye-witness and other eye-witnesses of the incident have already been declared hostile. Trial court has also observed that from the prosecution evidence it is also clear that parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, they have not supported the prosecution case. Further, no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in the finding of the learned trial court by learned counsel for the petitioner. ;