SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal No. 265/2002 against the judgment dated 25. 11. 2000 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge, Communal Riots Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 673/2000 (1698/1991) by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 323, 451 IPC.
(2.) IN this case a S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 52/2001 was also filed by the complainant-Prabhu Lal against the order of the aforesaid Judgment. Hence, the criminal appeal No. 265/2002 and criminal revision petition No. 52/2001 are arising out from the common order and decided by this Court by a common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 7. 3. 1991 at about 11 A. M. Prabhu Lal PW-2 lodged an First Information Report at police station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for an incident which had taken place on 7. 3. 1991 at about 6 A. M. It was stated that on the said date he was at House No. B-515, Malviya Nagar belonging to Smt. Raj Devi. Smt. Rajdevi who left him to look after the house as well as her son Vikram Singh. One Sardarji who disclosed his name Gurupal Singh, forcibly entered into the house and started fight with Vikram Singh. He sustained various injuries on his body. Gurupal Singh also broke the glass of the windows and turned out from the house. He informed to Vinod Kumar Meena on the telephone about the incident, who immediately reached on the spot. He knocked the door and asked the Sardraji (Gurupal Singh) to open the door of the house but he did not open the door of the house. Upon the said report the police registered the case for the offence under Section 452, 323, 427, 451 IPC. After completion of the investigation the police has filed challan against the accused-respondent under Section 451 & 323 IPC. The accused respondent denied the charges framed against him and claimed for trial. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 6 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 25. 11. 2000 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial Court dated 25. 11. 2000, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal and the complainant has also filed a criminal revision petition. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State of Rajasthan and the learned Advocate Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj appearing on behalf of complainant in revision petition contended that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and without appreciating the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused-respondent from the charge framed against him. According to him the offences under Section 451, 323 IPC is clearly made out against the accused- respondent. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in not taking into consideration that the prosecution has been able to prove him the guilty of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt for convicting him under Section 451, 323 IPC. He has further drawn attention of this Court on the statement of prosecution witnesses PW. 2 Prabhu Lal, PW. 4 Vikaram Singh. ;