HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.758 of 2024 30th June, 2025 Megh Singh Pokhariyal ………Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present criminal revision preferred under Section 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S.S. 2023 is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2023, Megh Singh Pokhariyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, whereby the said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 01.09.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Criminal Case No.607 of 2021 (NCR No.20 of 2020). 2. Facts in a nutshell are that the appellant- informant gave a report at Police Station Kotwali, District Uttarkashi stating therein that on 02.07.2020 his wife was doing work on her land; at about 06:00 P.M. a lady named Subdha along with her three brothers, son and labour was constructing a tin shed nearby the said land, when the lady committed marpeet and belaboured wife of the informant due to which she sustained some internal and external injuries and the matter was accordingly registered as NCR No.20 of 2020. 1 3. The case was investigated and on completion of which a charge sheet under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC was submitted and total eight number of witnesses namely PW1-Megh Singh, PW2-Anil Pokhariyal, PW3- Rakesh Laal, PW4-H.C.C.P Sandeep Kumar, PW5-Vikray Singh, PW6-S.I. Raman Bisht, PW7-Panchram Singh s/o Bhag Singh (again examined as PW8-Panchram Singh s/o Bhag Singh) were recorded by the prosecution in order to support its case. 4. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 01.09.2023 giving accused-Subdha benefit of doubt, acquit her under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC. Against the said judgment and order the revisionist preferred a Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2023, which also met with the same fate. Challenging both the orders, the revisionist has filed the present criminal revision. 5. It is argued by counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has erred in law and acquitted the respondent-accused; wherein they deposed against the accused in unanimity; there was ample evidence available on record to convict the accused; the finding of acquittal are not based on any cogent or reliable evidence and the judgment passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard counsel for the revisionist as well as counsel for the State in this matter. 7. PW1-informant and PW2-injured were admittedly having land enmity with the respondent- accused. PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that some land dispute is going-on between him and the respondent no.2 and also stated that the quarrel which took place was also related to the same land. It is also 2 admitted by PW1 that a case of violation of peace is also pending before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatwari. PW2-injured has also admitted the fact that of land dispute between the parties. She also admitted that on the report lodged by respondent-accused her husband was booked in a case relating to S.C.S.T. Act, 1989, in which her husband was sent to jail. Thus, it is an admitted fact that there was land enmity between the parties. 8. So far as PW3-Rakesh Lal is concerned his evidence is quite contradictory as in his examination-in- chief, he stated about the offence of exchange of abusive language, arguments, pushing etc. while in cross- examination he has stated that the respondent-Subdha did not commit any maarpeet, but actually earlier altercation had taken place. 9. PW7-Panchram Singh s/o Bhag Singh has stated in his evidence that when he reached at the spot the quarrel already took place and the parties had gone by then. This witness was cross-examined on 22.06.2023 in which he has again given evidence of pushing and abusive language. The court doubted the evidence of this witness. PW4-H.C.C.P Sandeep Kumar is a formal witness. PW5-Vikray Singh has proved the medical report of injured PW2-Anil Pokhariyal. 10. The court has doubted the evidence of PW6- S.I. Raman Bisht who is the Investigating Officer of the case. 11. The learned trial court having considered oral, factual and documentary evidence on record reached to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted 3 the accused respondent no.2 of the charges. The appellate court also reappreciated the entire evidence and affirmed the judgment and order passed by learned trial court. 12. I have perused the judgments and orders passed by the learned courts and I am of the considered view that there is hardly any need of interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the revisionist could not show any illegality and perversity in the judgments and orders impugned. There is very limited scope available to this Court while exercising its revisionisal jurisdiction. Moreover the finding of acquittal has been recorded twice in favour of the respondent no.2 which further strengthens her innocence. Thus no interference is required. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed at the threshold itself. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 30.06.2025 SK 4