CHHITAR MAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri VK. Shar ma, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Krishna Kapoor, learned Counsel for op posite parties Nos. 2 to 6 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) THE present revisionist, Chhitar Mal has filed a complaint against 11 ac cused persons alleging that the accused persons armed with lathis and dandas at tacked the complainant and when his wife came to his rescue they assaulted her also. When she ran to her house, the accused chased her and after breaking open the door they assaulted her and caused injuries to her. It was also alleged that while going to lodge report he was threatened to dire consequences on account of which the report was sent through registered post.

(3.) A perusal of the Revisional Court's judgment goes to show that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has expressed his opinion on merits of the case by making certain observations. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that certain circumstances made the prosecution theory false. There is no doubt about exag geration of the prosecution version but then the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have made such observations on facts. It is well settled that the Revisional Court cannot give findings of fact while hearing a revision. However, in the present case the peculiar circumstan ces are that as many as 11 accused are said to have assaulted the complainant's wife but she sustained only 3 injuries, which are on thigh only and not on any other part of the body, though victim complained of pain in other parts of the body yet no visible injury was seen, though she was allegedly beaten by lathis and Dandas. This prima fade shows that some of the accused persons were falsely nominated. The trial Court has not given reasons why only five viz. , opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 were picked-up and were summoned and why rest were not summoned. From the materials available on record it is difficult to decipher as to who were falsely nominated. In these circumstances, there appears substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that no useful purpose shall be served by continuing the prosecution as there is no likelihood of any of the accused being con victed.