IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the high threshold for interfering with acquittal judgments, requiring compelling reasons to overturn a lower court's decision.

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20.07.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.37/2005 whereby the learned appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondents No.1 to 5 and acquitted them from offence under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC while reversing the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar in Cr. Case No.299/2003.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2003, an FIR was registered at Police Station Sri Vijaynagar on the basis of a Parchabayan given by complainant Hetram, to the effect that when the complainant alongwith his family members was at his field, the accused persons came and started beating them by lathi and chain and thereafter they ran away. Upon registration of FIR, Police started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondents No.1 to 5. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 for offence under Sections 341, 147, 148, 323, 325/149 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 28.06.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 for the aforesaid offences.

6. Against their conviction, the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 20.07.2006 and the appellate court while reversing the judgment of conviction of the trial court, acquitted the respondents No.1 to 5 from offence under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC. Hence this revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the clear cut findings of conviction of the trial court, the learned appellate court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 from offence under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC. Counsel further submits that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 regarding commission of offence but the learned appellate court did not consider the same in right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5. The learned appellate court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5. Thus, the impugned appellate judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court deserves to be upheld.

8. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the learned appellate court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.

10. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court, it appears that the learned appellate court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the finding of the trial court. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 5 from offence under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC.

11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the appellate judgment under challenge. The order passed by the learned appellate court is a