JUDGMENT
Bansal, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 25.5.84 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati (District Sikar) by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents Mozzam All, Karamat Bano, Hakikat Bano, Tareek Bano and Marfat Bano of the charges under Section 147 & 324 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati on dated 2.3.74 alleging therein that on October 26, 1973 at about 5.00 p.m., he had gone to the mosque for “Azaan”. Having formed an unlawful assembly the accused came there and beat him with fists and kicks. They caused injuries with teeth bite on his back, left hand and finger of right hand. The incident was witnesses by Gulam Zilani and others. Thereafter, he lodged a report at Police Station, Fatehpur, but no action was taken by the Police. The accused committed an offence under Sections 324, 147, 352 & 341 IPC. Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and his witness Gulam Zilani under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and took cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 147 and 324 IPC.
3. Before framing of charge, the complainant examined PW1 Dr. Ram Narsingh Joshi and himself. Thereafter; charges under Sections 147 and 324 IPC were framed against all the accused. They denied the charges and claim trial. Thereafter the complainant and Dr. Joshi were further cross-examined. The complainant examined PW3 Peer gulam Zilani, PW4 Prahlad Rai also and closed his evidence. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused stated that the witnesses have deposed against them because of enmity. No witness was examined in defence.
4. Learned Magistrate after hearing the final submissions of both the parties, acquitted the accused-respondents from both the charges as indicated here in above. The complainant has assailed the judgment of acquittal by filing this appeal. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on dated 13.11.84.
5. During the pendency of this trial accused-respondent No. 1 Nurul Hussain had died and so the appeal against him had abated.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused-respondents No.2 to 6. Record of the trial as well as the impugned judgment s also been perused.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that there was sufficient material before the trial Court to hold the accused guilty under Sections 147 & 324 IPC. He contended that the evidence of the complainant has been disbelieved by learned Magistrate on flimsy grounds. The complainant was supported by medical evidence as well as by ocular testimony of PW3 Peer Gulam Zilani and PW4 Prahlad Rai. The evidence produced by he complainant was not appreciated correctly and properly and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced under Sections 147 and 324 IPC. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents supported the impugned judgment.
8. Learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents on the following grounds:-
(1) The complaint did not get himself examined by any of the Medical Officers posted in Fatehpur. He got himself examined by Dr. Joshi, who was posted as Medical Officer, P.H.C., Village Tajsar (District Sikar) and no explanation was given by the complainant for not getting himself examined by Medical Officer, Fatehpur.
(2) injury Report Ex.P1 prepared by Dr. Joshi is a forged document. Original Injury Report was submitted by the complainant to SHO, Fatehpur. Dr. Joshi prepared another Injury Report Ex.P1 and no certificate was given by him to the effect that it was a true copy of the original Injury Report. Apart from that, name of the person examined and date of examination were also changed by Dr. Joshi.
(3) There are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant, his complaint fired in the Court and the report submitted by him at P.S., Fatehpur.
(4) The testimony of PW3 Peer Gulam Zilani is not reliable as he is an interested witness and his relations are not cordial with the accused Nurul Hasan. So many civil and criminal cases are pending between them.
(5) The testimony of PW4 Prahlad Rai also is not trust- worthy in view of affidavit Ex.D3, wherein he has stated that the alleged incident was not seen by him.
(6) Accused Mozzam All was not named as one of the accused in the FIR submitted by the complainant at Police Station. Independent witnesses Umar Daraj and Moonga have been withheld.
(7) Injuries of accused Nurul Hassan have not been explained by the complainant during the trial.
9. Having stated the aforesaid grounds, learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his case and, therefore, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the grounds of acquittal stated in impugned judgment and also perused the entire evidence of the complainant. In my considered view, the judgment of the teamed Judicial Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the reasons which have been assigned by the learned trial Court are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished and this court while hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal merely on the ground that from the prosecution evidence, another view can be taken. If two views are possible then the view favourable to the accused should be adopted. This court in State of Rajasthan v. Indra Chand (1), has held that:-
“Since the learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at the findings just quoted above and since they are based on correct appreciation of the evidence, this Court should also give proper weight and consideration as the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses must be respected. Apart from this, the court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Judge as the trial Judge had advantage of seeing the witnesses and even if the reasonable conclusions can be draw on evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below.”
10. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal has no force and, therefore, it is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25.5.84 passed by learned. Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati (District Sikar) is confirmed.