ORDER
D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Naidu, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Badar, the learned A.P.P. for non-applicant No. 1 and Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for the non-applicants 2 and 3.
2. The instant revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-8-95 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 73/93 where the present non-applicants 2 and 3 came to be acquitted and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur on 30-7-93 came to be set aside.
3. Before I proceed to consider the merits of the matter, it will be appropriate to observe at this stage itself that the present revision is preferred by the complainant in a case which is instituted on a police report. The State has not filed any revision or appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and, therefore, while exercising powers under Section 397 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure, this Court has very little scope in the matter in question.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur after taking into consideration the prosecution evidence, came to the right conclusion and rightly convicted the non-applicants 2 and 3. for the offence charged. It is further submitted that the lower appellate Court has not rightly reappreciated the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution and came to the wrong conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence charged against the non-applicants 2 and 3 and wrongly acquitted them. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W. 1 – Parvatibai, the complainant and P.W.2 – Kundanlal-hus-band of the complainant, in their respective testimonies have specifically stated that both of them have sustained injury in the incident in question. The learned counsel submitted that non-examination of doctor in the circumstances of the case, is not fatal to the prosecution since the evidence of these two witnesses is consistent and acceptable to the Court. It is further contended that the question of discarding the evidence on the basis of the contradictions and omissions in the instant case does not arise since the Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution in order to prove the same. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the lower appellate Court has wrongly placed reliance on mis aspect and reached the wrong conclusion by which the order of acquittal lame to be passed. On the backdrop of this circumstance, it is submitted that the appreication done and the finding arrived at by the learned lower appellate Court is not just and proper and the same is not sustainable in law.
5. Shri Badar, the learned A.P.P. as well as Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for non-applicants 2 and 3 have supported the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge.
6. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court. It will be appropriate at this stage to consider undisputed facts. Those are; the prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer in the insant case, the prosecution has also not examined the panch witness in order to prove the seizure of clothes and weapons, the clothes and weapons were also not sent to the Chemical Analyser. Therefore, there is no evidence brought before the Court in respect of any blood-stains alleged to have been noticed on the clothes.
7. The prosecution in the instant case has examined only 3 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Parvatibai, P.W. 2 Kundanlal and P.W. 3 Vithhal. The evidence of these three witnesses is inconsistent and suffers from material discrepancies. P.W.I Parvatibai and P.W. 2 Kundanlal are the interested witnesses and their testimonies do not inspire confidence because it suffers from material discrepancies in respect of the material particulars of the prosecution case. As stated above, in the instant case non-examination of the doctor and panch witness by the prosecution as well as not obtaining opinion of the Chemical Analyser in regard to the clothes and weapons has adversely affected the prosecution in question. The lower appellate Court, in my opinion, has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order requires no interference at the hands of this Court.
8. In the result, the revision is dismissed.