[2025:RJ-JP:13869] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1113/2006 Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rambabu Sharma R/o Village Angai, police station Sarmathura District Dholpur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Bhagwan Singh S/o Sh Kalyan Singh 3. Hawaldar Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh 4. Anil Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh 5. Jaswant S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh 6. Ramavtar Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh 7. Subedar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh All R/o Village Moripura 8. Jai Ram S/o Shri Nihal Singh R/o Village Jorgadi 9. Gyan Chand S/o Shri Tantoli R/o Village Angai 10. Ram Het S/o Sh Kishanu R/o village Pipret 11 Dallu Ram S/o Shri Ramhet R/o village Pipret 12. Bhagwat Das S/o Shri Ramhet R/o Villae Pipret All police station Sarmathura District Dholpur (Raj) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Ms. Ritu Goyal Mr. Lokendra Sharma Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Poonia, PP Mr. Anil Jain Mr. Dushyant Jain Mr. Udayshankar Acharya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 26/03/2025 1. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial court erred in acquitting the respondents for the [2025:RJ-JP:13869] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1113/2006] offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 342 of IPC vide judgment dated 23.08.2006. It is argued that eye witnesses PW-3 Shivdutt and PW-4 Vinod in their examination-in-chief clearly corroborated the prosecution story. It is proved by prosecution that both the injured sustained injuries. 2. Learned trial court wrongly appreciated the evidence of PW-3 Shivdutt and PW-4 Vinod, therefore the order passed by the learned trial court suffered from patent illegality and judgment dated 23.08.2006 may be altered accordingly. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents justify the order of acquittal passed by learned court below. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. Learned trial court in para-6 of the judgment observed that the incident occurred without any intention, the allegation against the petitioner is that he came with arms is per see, eye witnesses PW-3 Vinod and PW-4 Shivdutt in their cross examination have admitted the fact that dispute arose when the commissioner inspected the place, they have also admitted that there is dispute regarding land between the parties. Learned trial court also appreciated the statement of other witnesses namely PW-7 Dungar, PW-8 Sandeep PW-11 Vakeel PW-12 Narottam and concluded that they were not present at the place of occurrence. Evidence of PW-9 Prahlad is also not reliable as there is contradiction between the statement of PW-3 Vinod and PW-4 Shivdutt. PW-9 in his examination in chief has stated that respondent Ramavtar was having rifle with him and Bhagwan and [2025:RJ-JP:13869] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1113/2006] Jayram were having sticks with them other witnesses have denied the same fact. 6. Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence putforth by the prosecution has rightly acquitted the respondent under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 342 of IPC. 7. I do not find any infirmity in the said order, revision petition devoid of any merit stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashu Dudeja /17