The court affirmed that appellate courts must uphold acquittals unless clear evidence of trial court error or gross injustice is shown.

1. By means of this criminal revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401, Cr. P.C, the complainant petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur in Case No. Criminal Appeal 13(1) of 2016 affirming the judgment and order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Case No. PRC (SP) 29 of 2014 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents from the charges of S.448 and S.323 IPC.

2. The prosecutions story, briefly stated, is that the complainant (PW - 2) filed a written complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Udaipur on 11.12.2013 alleging, inter alia, that on 19.11.2013 some miscreants of her locality tried to encroach her Jote land and in order to achieve the target they assaulted the complainant and caused damage to the boundary fencing of the said land. For redress, she lodged a complaint with the Officer in Charge of R.K. Pur police station on 20.11.2013. In retaliation, the accused respondents, armed with deadly weapons, again entered into her land on 21.11.2013 at about 11 a.m. and started felling her trees. While the complainant raised objection, they assaulted her and outraged her modesty. Following her hue and cry, the neighbouring people appeared and seeing them the accused respondents fled away.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded her complaint to the Officer in Charge of R.K. Pur police station at Udaipur for investigation and based on the complaint R.K. Pur P.S. case No. 411 of 2013 under S.447, S.448, S.323, S.354, S.427 and S.506 read with S.34 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.

4. Sri Kapil Paul, Sub Inspector of police of R.K. Pur police station having completed the investigation filed charge sheet No. 358 of 2013 dated 28.12.2013 against all the 04 (four) FIR named accused respondents under S.448 and S.323 read with S.34 IPC.

5. Based on the charge sheet, cognizance of offence punishable under S.448 and S.323 read with S.34 IPC was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the trial proceeded. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against them and claimed a trial.

6. During trial, oral evidence of 6 (six) witnesses including the complainant was adduced and 5 (five) documents (Exbt.1 to Exbt.5/1) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. At the closure of prosecution evidence, separate statement of each of the accused respondents under S.313, Cr.P.C was recorded by the learned trial court. In reply, each of the accused respondents pleaded innocence and claimed that the charges were foisted on them. They declined to adduce any witness on their defence. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge returned the finding of acquittal of all the accused respondents from each of the charges brought against them. In appeal by the complainant, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the findings of the learned trial court. Hence, the complainant being petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges.

7. I have heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the complainant petitioner as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent and Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents.

8. The statement of PW - 1 Dulal Debnath, a neighbour of the complainant, is not relevant because he did not support the prosecution case at the trial as a result of which he was declared hostile at the insta