[2025:RJ-JP:12578] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1290/2005 Sheodan Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, R/o Khokharia Khurd, District Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Bharu Singh S/o Karan Singh 3. Tufan Singh S/o Narain Singh 4. Ranjit Singh S/o Karan Singh All residents of Khokharia Khurd, Police Station Pagaria, District Jhalawar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Rajendra Gautam, Adv. For Mr. Shailesh Kumar Panwar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 19/03/2025 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 14.10.2005, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Sessions Case No.53/2005, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the accused-respondents namely Bharu Singh, Tufan Singh and Ranjit Singh for the offences under Sections 341, 302 and 34 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:12578] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1290/2005] 3. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any revision petition against the acquittal order passed by the learned Court below. In the revision petition, it is stated that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence rightly and acquitted the accused- respondents under Sections 341, 323, 302 and 34 of IPC. The learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused-respondents by overlooking the testimony of the complainant and of witness PW.4 Shyam Singh. The findings given by the learned trial Court are arbitrary and perverse. The learned trial Court has also erred in it’s opinion that the delay in filing of an FIR is fatal. The delay in filing of an FIR was duly explained by the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the acquittal order passed against the accused- respondents may be quashed and set aside and they be convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 302 of IPC. 4. Contrarily, learned counsel for the accused-respondents justifies the order passed by the learned Court below. It is contended that the learned Court below has passed the detailed order after critically examining and analyzing the statements of eye-witness PW.4 Shyam Singh. The other eye-witness PW.5 Umrav Singh has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Learned Court below after appreciating the evidence of PW.3 Sheodan Singh and PW.4 Shyam Singh gave cogent reasons to disbelieve the testimony of eye-witness PW.4 Shyam Singh. It is also contended that the scope of the revision is very limited and the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, therefore the revision petition deserves dismissal. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:12578] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1290/2005] 6. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.10.2005 has thoroughly appreciated the testimony of the material witnesses put-forth before it. The learned Court below while appreciating the evidence of eye-witness PW.4 Shyam Singh found his presence doubtful at the spot as he did not endeavor to save his real brother. The specific defence was taken by the respondents that deceased accidentally fell from his motorcycle and sustained injuries. The trial Court also took note of the statement of PW.3 Sheodan Singh. Apart from the solitary eye- witness, the other material witness PW.5 Umrav Singh has not supported the prosecution story. The weapons recovered from the instance of the accused-respondents were found without any blood stains. The trial Court after minutely appreciating the evidence of all the witnesses has rightly acquitted the accused- respondents under Section 341, 323, 302 and 34 of IPC. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /13