RAM SAURP Vs. BALWAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially the petitioner complainant Ram Sarup son of Sher Singh (for brevity 'the complainant'), has filed a criminal complaint against Balwanaccused (respondent No.1), under Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred 'the SC/ST Act'). The Special Judge dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.01.2012.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred the present petition for grant of leave to appeal, to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal, under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C..

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.