[2025:RJ-JP:40919] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.198/2006 Atar Singh S/o Narayan Singh, R/o Gola Ka Nagla, P.S. Kumbher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kamal Singh S/o Tyohari 2. Atam Singh S/o Bishakh Singh (Both are residents of Nagla Bola, P.S. Kumbher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan). 3. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurodh Chaturvedi on behalf of Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/10/2025 1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner- complainant against the judgment dated 25.11.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bharatpur, Rajasthan in Session Case No.77/2005, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 326, 323, 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act of 1959'). 2. Relevant facts are that one FIR No.256/2004 was lodged at Police Station-Kumher, District-Bharatpur, Rajasthan against the accused-respondents with the allegations that on 30.06.2004 at around 9:00 p.m. when the complainant was [2025:RJ-JP:40919] (2 of 4) [CRLR-198/2006] having his dinner, all of a sudden, the accused/respondent-Atam Singh came to his house and started abusing him, when the complainant resisted, he attacked with a sword, which caused injury on his hand. He also called Kamal Singh, Jamal Kaur and others, who came with sticks in their hands and started beating the complainant, who sustained injuries at his temple, back and toes. 3. After lodging the FIR, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet was filed against accused/respondent-Atam Singh under Sections 326, 323, 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Act of 1959 and against accused/respondent-Kamal Singh under Section 323 I.P.C. Charges were framed against the accused-respondents, who denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Thereafter, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they did not accept the allegations levelled in the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard and as the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents, learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 25.11.2005, acquitted both the accused/respondents of all the charges levelled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment dated 25.11.2005 passed by the learned trial Court suffers from serious illegality and irregularities in the manner that the material as well as evidence on record was not appreciated in right perspective. Even the doctor was examined, who gave his [2025:RJ-JP:40919] (3 of 4) [CRLR-198/2006] statement in support of injury reports (Exhibit P-3 & P-6) and even recovery of sword was also made from accused/respondent- Atam Singh. Under these circumstances, where presence of accused-respondents was proved at the site of incident and injuries were proved by the doctor and the weapon was also recovered, there was no justified reason whatsoever to assume that the accused-respondents have not committed the offences alleged against them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the judgment dated 25.11.2005 suffers from surmises and assumptions where without there being any evidence in defence, right to private defence by the accused-respondents was assumed by the learned Court below in order to acquit the accused- respondents. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005 is liable to be quashed and the matter is required to be remanded back to trial Court for fresh consideration. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the present revision petition. 8. No one is present on behalf of the accused-respondents despite service. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor and examined the record. 10. From the evidence on record, it has come out that it was not the accused-respondents who went to the house of the complainant and rather both the parties have sustained injuries and it was found that the complainant was the aggressor. 11. While examining the injury report, it was also found that the injuries were sustained by blunt object and on account of [2025:RJ-JP:40919] (4 of 4) [CRLR-198/2006] the fact that the complainant was aggressor, the accused- respondents have exercised their right of private defence. Merely, on account of the fact that no additional evidence in defence has been given by the accused-respondents, it cannot be said that the theory of private defence cannot be pressed into service. Even such fact, if comes out by the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or the material otherwise available on record, the trial Court can very well appreciate the submissions put forward by the accused-respondents with regard to the exercise of their right of private defence. 12. So far as recovery of sword from accused/respondent- Atam Singh is concerned, which has also come on record that accused/respondent-Atam Singh is Sikh by religion and he was possessing the sword which is religious symbol and the Sikh cannot be made accused under Arms Act, 1959 for possessing sword/kirpan. 13. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any jurisdictional error, manifest and perverse illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, there is no substance and merit in the present revision petition filed by the petitioner and the same, is hereby, dismissed. 14. Record of the learned Court below be sent back. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/2