The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide sufficient and credible evidence to substantiate charges, including the need for medical evidence and the production of additional witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision, filed by the petitioner, namely, Hardit Singh on whose complaint, FIR No. 42/2006 for offences under Section 451/323/34 RPC claimed to have been registered in the Police Station, Miran Sahib, is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest), Jammu ['trial Court'] in File No. 147/Challan titled 'State vs. Jagmohan Singh and Ors.'.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge pleaded in this revision petition, it is apt to briefly notice the prosecution story as projected in the charge-sheet presented before the trial Court on 28.12.2006 against the private respondents herein :

As per the prosecution, on 14.10.2006 one Jaswant Kour (complainant) along with her son Ajit Singh came to the Police Station and submitted a written application stating therein that the private respondents herein were her neighbourers and that on the said day in the morning when she was sweeping the drain in front of her house, the private respondents with criminal intention started abusing her. She objected and asked them not to abuse her and her other family members. All the private respondents entered her house and with criminal intention attacked her and her husband with a 'kai' and stones and inflicted injuries to her. On raising hue and cry, few persons gathered on spot and saved her from the clutches of the respondents. Upon this information, FIR No. 42/2006 for the offences under Sections 452/323/34 RPC came to be registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was presented by the Investigating Officer before the trial Court.

3. With a view to prove its case, the prosecution produced and examined only one witness i.e. the complainant Jaswant Kour. In spite of opportunities granted by the trial Court to the prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses, it did not produce any witness. Thereafter, an application under Section 540 CrPC for summoning of witnesses filed by the prosecution was allowed by the trial Court, but still the prosecution could not produce any more witness, as such, right of the prosecution to lead evidence was closed and the statements of respondents under Section 342 CrPC were recorded. Incriminating evidence was put to the respondents and in response thereto, they stated that wrong statement had been made by the complainant against them as she was inimical to them and that they had been falsely implicated in the case. It was submitted by the respondents that since they had tried to stop the complainant from cutting the tree from their land, as such, she concocted a false case and lodged FIR against them.

4. The trial Court, after hearing SPO for the State and the learned counsel representing the private respondents and after evaluating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had led a very weak evidence to substantiate its case and it was not safe to convict the respondents on the basis of such evidence. The trial Court, accordingly, vide its judgment impugned dismissed the charge-sheet and acquitted the respondents of the charges leveled against them. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner, who claims to be the husband of the complainant, who had actually lodged the FIR. It has also been brought to my notice by Mr. Surinder Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents that the judgment impugned herein had also been assailed by the petitioner in SLA No. 109/2013 in CRAA 188/2013 which was not later on pursued and the same was dismissed by this Court for non prosecution vide its order dated 13th July 2021.

5. Heard Mr. Surinder Singh learned counsel representing the respondents and perused the impugned judgment and other relevant material on record.

6. The locus of the petitioner to file this petition is seriously in dispute. In the revision petition, the petitioner claims that he being the complainant in this case is entitled to challenge the judgment of acquittal, whereas, from the