Order

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.-This revision petition has been filed against the order of acquittal dated 06.03.2012 passed by the Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Samba, in criminal challan titled State v. Diwan Chand and others. The order of acquittal has been challenged in this revision petition precisely on the ground that the impugned judgment is against law and facts, highly prejudicial to the interests of equity and justice and the Trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence, misconstrued the law and has overlooked the legally admissible evidence. It is submitted that by ordering acquittal of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9, the Trial Court has committed grave error of law, which is perverse and, therefore, indulgence of this Court is required to prevent gross mis-carriage of justice. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the offences were proved against the accused by oral as well as documentary evidence.

2. After filing of the revision, notices were sent to the respondents. The petitioner is not appearing in this case since 8th June, 2020 nor has anybody appeared when the case was taken up today. Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate caused appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 9, whereas Mr. Aseem Sawhney, No.10. Since nobody has appeared for the petitioner, therefore, this revision is considered after hearing learned counsel for the respondents only.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court and that the Trial Court has passed the order impugned after appreciating the entire evidence before it. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the revision against an order of acquittal has a limited scope and High Court can interfere only when the order under challenge is perverse or has caused any illegality.

4. While considering the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents and the grounds taken in the revision, it would be profitable to give brief facts of the case:-

As per the prosecution story, on 20.09.1997, the petitioner had started the construction work of lane at village Sangwal under the orders of Block Development Officer, Gagwal. At about 8.30 a.m., respondent Nos. 1 to 9, who were armed with sword, khokhri and lathies arrived on spot and with common object of taking the life of the petitioner. In furtherance of common object respondent-Diwan Chand asked him to stop the work of construction but on refusal by the petitioner to stop the work, accused persons attacked him and other labourers. The petitioner along with labourers fled to the house of one Girdhari Lal to save their lives but accused chased them and entered into the house of Girdhari Lal. Accused inflicted injuries to petitioner and others. Respondent No.1 was stated carrying Khokhri, who inflicted injury on the petitioner. Accused Kewal Kumar was stated carrying sword in his hand. When locals arrived there, accused-respondent Nos. 1 to 9 fled away from the spot. On this statement police reached on spot, took the injured to hospital. A case FIR No.158/1997 was registered at Police Station, Hiranagar under Section 4/25 Arms Act and under Sections 307, 352, 147, 325, 324 r/w Section 149 RPC. Site plan was prepared, statement of eyewitnesses was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Alleged weapon of offences were seized. After completing the investigation, Final Police Report was presented. The charges were framed against the accused on 02.06.1998. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses out of the sixteen listed witnesses in the challan, whereas no witness has been examined by the accused in defence.

5. After appreciating the evidence adduced before it, the Trial Court has observed as under:-

“There are huge contradictions in the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses regar