PARMAR KASHIBEN NATHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the original complainant. She has filed this revision application calling in question the legality of the judgment dated 14.11.03 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana. The petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3, original accused for offence under section 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Upon completion of trial, the learned Special Court Judge, acquitted the accused by the impugned order against which this revision application has been filed.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, I find that the learned Judge had taken into account the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the charges were not proved. Significantly, the learned Judge found that the complaint was filed nearly five days after the alleged incident. Further, except the complainant herself, no one else had supported the incident as eye witness. Other witnesses did not support the prosecution. Counsel for the petitioner, however, heavily relied on the medical evidence wherein the doctor had stated that the complainant was complaining of chest pain. Hover, there were no external marks of injuries found. The learned Judge opined that the doctor had examined the complainant after 5 days of the incident. In any case no injury marks were found. All the above are pure factual findings. No irregularity or illegality is pointed out in such evidence. Therefore, in exercise of revisional powers, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the court below. This application is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.