- (1.) THIS criminal revision under S.397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-1-2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, district Rajsamand (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 265/2003, by which the trial Court acquitted accused / non petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 of the offences under S.341 and S.323, IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, the petitioner complainant has filed the instant revision petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment and order impugned. Pw 1 Nawal Ram is the complainant petitioner, who, in his statement has stated that accused / non petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 gave beatings to him by kicks and fist blows. Pw 2 Gordhan is the son of the petitioner, who has stated that there was noise in the street and suddenly he heard loud voice and when he came out, his father met him on the way and told that including non petitioner Bharat Kumar, there were three other persons who gave beatings to him. Pw 3 Mst. Basanti, wife of the petitioner complainant, also made the similar statement. However, all these witnesses have admitted that it was a thickly populated area and there were many persons present on the spot, but no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. Pw 4 Heera Lal did not support the prosecution case. Pw 5 Dr. Jai Singh noticed two simple injuries on the person of the injured.
(3.) THE accused / non petitioners made statements under S.313 of the Code and denied the occurrence. They produced DW 2 Nathu as defence witness, who has stated that the petitioner and his son Gordhan slipped and fell down from the wall and suffered injuries by a stone. He was the person who was working as mason for raising the wall. The prosecution witnesses have stated that some of the neighbourers, viz. Mangi Lal, Veni Ram, Daulat Ram, Logar Singh, Udai Lal and Shankar Lal, were present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and they rescued the petitioner. None of these persons has been produced by the prosecution. There are material contradictions in the statements of the petitioner, his son Gordhan and wife Smt. Basanti. The presence of non petitioner Bharat Kumar was not established at the place of the occurrence.;