JUDGMENT
S.C. Jain, J.
1. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that respondents Jagdish, Rameshwar Das and Bansi were tried in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for offences under Sections 451/34 IPC for ^committing house trespass by entering into house No. 2678 Roshanpura, Nai Sarak, Delhi, in order to assault the complainant Siri Kishan Dass.
2. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, did not find any substance in the prosecution case and therefore the trial court acquitted all the three respondents of the said offence.
3. The State did not prefer any revision against the said order. However, the complainant Siri Kishan Dass moved this revision petition challenging the order of the trial court. Though the case has been very old and the same has been shown on the board, none appeared on behalf of the parties.
4. The revision against the acquittal order has been pending since 1978, I find that no useful purpose would be served by postponing this petition. Therefore, I propose to dispose of the same on the basis of the record available on the file.
5. As per the case of the complainant, he along with two other persons Ram Lubhaya and Shambbu Nath was present in his house No. 2678 Roshanpura, Delhi, when the respondents came in and demanded money from him and on his refusal he was given beatings and thereafter they ran away. Besides the complainant, two other persons Ram Lubhaya and Shambhu Nath appeared as prosecution witnesses. It is on the record that the house of the complainant where the alleged incident took place is situated in a thickly populated area and his house is also surrounded by various houses on all sides. It is apparent from the record that other family members of the complainant were present in the house at that time. No person from the house of the complainant or any person from the locality has been examined as a witnesses in the case. The trial court did not put reliance on the evidence of the complainant Ram Lubhaya and Shambhu Nath who according to the complaint were his friends. It is very strange that though it is a case of assault, the police did not get the complainant medically examined, nor the complainant made any request for his medical examination. In the absence of any medical report, it is to be seen whether the statement of the complainant and two of his friends Ram Lubhaya and Shambhu Nath, whose presence at that time seems to be doubtful, can be made the basis for conviction of the respondents.
6. I have gone through the statement of these three witnesses who have contradicted themselves on most of the material points. Non-examination of other family members of the complainant who were present at that time and not getting the complainant medically examined are some of the factors which have weighed in the mind of the trial court in acquitting the respondents. The trial court has appreciated the evidence by discussing the statement of each and every witness. I find no justification for interfering in the findings of the trial court and on the basis of appreciation of the oral evidence I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.