1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 02.02.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 63/2003, by which learned trial court has acquitted accused-respondents, namely, Bhonrilal, Hanuman, Jaikishan, Sheonarain, Laxmi Narain, of the charges for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325/149 IPC.

2. Facts of the case are that a written-report was submitted by one Panchuram Meena, to Station House Officer, Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur, on 17.06.2000, alleging that Sheonarain S/o Bhonrilal forcibly tried to plough their agriculture field. When then they asked them not to do so, Kishan, Hanuman, Bhonrilal, Shankar, Laxmi Narain, Mohan and female members of their family, namely, Jyana W/o Bhonrilal, Nangi W/o Hanuman, Kamla W/o Jai Kishan, Mangli W/o Sheonarain, all armed with 'lathis', 'kulharis', iron rods and stones, attacked them. Kishan inflicted a 'lathi' blow on the person of Ghasi. Hanuman had a 'kulhari' in his hand and thereby inflicted a blow on the head of Kalyan. Bhonrilal attacked Gaura with 'lathi'. All the family members attacked them. Kamla W/o Jaikishan snatched a gold chain of his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Kalli. Nangi W/o Hanuman snatched gold ear-rings of his mother.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written-report, First Information Report No. 124/2000 was registered with the Police Station Shivdaspura for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 447 and 379 of the IPC.

4. After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a final report in the matter before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. On protest petition, learned Magistrate took cognizance against accused-respondents for offence under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 325 IPC. After filing challan, the accused were committed to the court of Sessions, wherefrom it was made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. That court was already ceased with the trial in cross-case against the complainant in the present case. Learned trial court charged the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325/149 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got 17 documents exhibited in order to prove its case. The defence examined two witnesses and got 8 documents exhibited. The learned trial court, however, acquitted the accused-respondents. Though in the cross-case, the trial court convicted and sentenced four members of the complainant party herein, out of them, two were convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, 323 IPC, third was convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, 323 and 379 IPC and fourth was convicted for offence under Section 302/34 IPC in separate trial, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

5. Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner argued that the learned trial court has fallen in grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges. The findings of the learned trial court acquitting the accused-respondents are based on surmises, conjectures and misreading of evidence. It is trite that the learned trial court ought not to be influenced in any manner, covertly or overtly, by the cross case. In the present case, the learned trial court seems to have been grossly influenced by the facts as also evidence on the record of cross-case. While arriving at the finding that accused-respondents had the right of private defence of body, the learned trial court took into consideration the injuries on the person of accused-respondents as also the factum that one of the member of the accused-party, namely, Smt. Jyana Devi died in the incident. The learned trial court jumped to the conclusions in a very slip shod manner. In spite of overwhelming evidence on record qua the injuries suffered by the complainant party, including grievous onces, the learned trial court