Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Sonkar, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal.

2. The instant revision has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.02.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba, in Criminal Case No. 2842 of 1997 Shiv Kumar vs. Shushil Kumar, under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted opposite party no. 2 of charges under aforesaid Sections of IPC.

3. It is gathered from the impugned judgment that the prosecution case was confined to the ambit that the accused-opposite party no. 2 Shushil Kumar Dwivedi is the son of the complainant Shiv Kumar and he separated from the complainant in the year 1989. The complainant was residing with his another son Kamlesh Kumar. While separating, Shushil Kumar Dwivedi was given one flour mill and speller with condition that he will repay the loan to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to Allahabad Bank. After two years, the accused-opposite party no. 2 sold flour mill and speller and did not repay the loan amount to the bank. Due to this, the complainant had to repay the loan amount and when the same was demanded from the accused-opposite party no. 2, he felt annoyed and in that particular factual background, he came to the house of the complainant around 12:00 noon on 29.12.1994 and tried to take way television set from his house. When he was stopped by the victim Kusum Lata and she asked him not to take away the television set, he beat up his mother by fists and kicks, besides abusing and threatening her.

4. It is also gathered from the impugned judgment that the report was also tried to be lodged at Police Station Mahoba but the same was not registered. A report was sent by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba and Station House Officer Mahoba. Even then no action was taken. At last, a complaint was filed before the trial court under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 IPC. Charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused-opposite party no. 2 who denied charges and opted for trial.

5. As a sequel to it, the complainant Shiv Kumar got himself examined as PW-1, Virendra PW-2 and Parshu Ram PW-3. Thereafter, the accused-opposite party no. 2 produced Smt. Mamta Dwivedi as DW-1 in support of the defence. Some inland letters were also produced by the defence.

6. Grounds urged while assailing the aforesaid finding of acquittal is confined to fact that the impugned judgment is fraught with manifest error of law and fact. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba has not properly appreciated evidence produced by the revisionist and based its finding of acquittal on conjectures and surmises. The impugned judgment itself is arbitrary.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that wholesome reading of the evidence will reflect on culpability of the accused-opposite party no. 2 that he has committed heinous offence by beating his own mother, though the mother has not been produced as witness before the trial court, but that factor would not mitigate magnitude of the offence against the lady victim and the accused-opposite party no. 2 deserves punishment. The eye account testimony of occurrence has been given by Parshu Ram PW-3 but that has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. Trial court did not appreciate evidence and facts in right perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment is laible to be set aside.

8. Learned AGA while retorting to the aforesaid contention has submitted that in this case, the trial court has based findings of acquittal on evidence on record which do not support the prosecution story. The injured witness was not produced by the prosecution before the trial court. This way, doubt was created and legal position is that doubt always favours the accused.

9. Consi