SHARVATI DEVI Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against a judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated August 18,1978,by which he had accepted the appeal and acquitted respondent No. 1.

(2.) The facts of this case in brief are that Public Witness . 1 Sharbati is the real sister of the wife of respondent No. 1, and they arc living in the neighbourhood of each other. On October 16, 1973, Public Witness 1 came to the Police Station and lodged Daily Diary Report No. 20 at about 7.15 P.M. wherein she mentioned that in the morning she had a quarrel with her sister Santosh, wife of respondent No. I and she was not having good relations with her earlier also and on that day at about 7.30 A.M. when she was talking with one Durgi that respondent No. I came there and had objected to putting of some fencing ; that Shiv Kumar respondent No. 1 gave her beating with fist blows and one brick blow. Public Witness 1 was got medically examined and the doctor (Public Witness 4) found some bruises present on the left gluteal region and right lower chest and left shoulder and found the abdomen to be soft. He advised X-ray and later on. a fracture of ninth rib on the left side was found and the injury opined to be grievous in nature as per medical report Ex. Public Witness 4/A. However, he could not say whether the injury to the rib was fresh one or old one. The Radiologist coming as Public Witness 7, however, in the cross-examination admitted that this fracture could be 3 to 4 days old although he termed theaid fracture as 'fresh' but he clarified that by 'fresh fracture' he means that the fracture was caused within fourteen days. The challan was filed for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian. Penal Code. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate believing the version given by Public Witness 1 and supported by her tenant-Shiv Shankar (Public Witness 5) had brought home the offence to respondent No. 1 but in appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the venion of the proieentien doubtful and bad acquitted respondent No. 1.

(3.) The learned counsel foi the petitioner has read out the statements. of the witoesiel before m in detail and has argued that the Additional Sessions Judge was not right in disbelieving the version given out by Public Witness 1 and duly corroborated by Public Witness 5. In the DD report it was indicated that PW 5 and one Babu Lal bad come to the spot on hearing the noise of the quarrel and they had intervened. The Additional Sessions Judge also found that presence of Durgi has been also indicated in the FIR but neither Durgi nor Babu Lal have been examined as witnesses. He found the statement of Sbiv Shankar to be somewhat not credible as he had stated at one place that PW 1 was lying on the ground when be bad come to the spot The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether this Court should set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge after appraising the evidence: The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very much limited. This revision is not filed by the State but has been filed by the aggrieved party- complainant. Unless and until it is shown that the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is perverse, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting respondent No. 1 and directing the retrial of respondent No. 1 by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.