1
D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07
Uda v. State
D.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1119/07
Uda vs. The State
Date of Order : 14.7.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
HON’BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA,J.
Mr. Ramesh Purohit for the petitioenr.
Mr. V.R. Mehta, P.P. for the State.
Mr. Manish Pithalia for the respondents no.2 and 3.
…..
This D.B.Criminal Revision has been preferred by the
complainant Uda s/o Gautam being aggrieved against the
acquittal of respondents no.2 and 3 who have been acquitted by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera camp Badi-Sadari
in Sessions Case No.4/2006 by the judgment dated 22.7.2006.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner
submitted an oral report at Police station, Badi-Sadri on
14.1.2005 at 5.40 p.m. that in the evening at 4 p.m. on the
same day he was in his agricultural field and his father was
sitting at Bavaji-ka-Deora (a religious place). There, the accused
Bheru Lal came and asked the complainant’s father Gautam why
he has taken the dung of she-buffalo and started beating victim
Gautam. Accused Bheru Lal’s son Uda also gave beating to victim
Gautam. This incident was seen by some children who informed
2
D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07
Uda v. State
the complainant. The complainant himself rushed to the place of
incident and asked Udai Lal and Bheru Lal about the incident,
then they told that the victim Gautam gave beating to his she-
buffalo. At that time no other person was there. A case was
registered under Sections 341 and 323/34, IPC. Subsequently,
the victim died at 8 p.m. and thereafter, case was registered
under Section 302, IPC. The prosecution produced witnesses
who are PW-4 Suresh, PW-5 Uda @ Udai Lal, PW-6 Nathu Lal.
PW-5 Uda and PW-6 Nathu Lal are the sons of victim whereas
PW-4 Suresh is a boy of 15 years and who was grand-son of the
victim. The trial court after going through all the evidence on
record, observed that the only injury which was on the left side
of the head of the victim was from blunt object and as per the
prosecution case, it was by single blow of one lathi. One lathi
was recovered from the accused but without having blood stains.
The trial court held that the presence of all the three witnesses
PW-4 Suresh, PW-5 Uda and PW-7 Nathu Lal have not been
proved by the cogent and reliable evidence by the prosecution
and none of the above witnesses saw the beating of the victim
by the accused. The victim though died because of the injury on
the head but that injury was minor injury and there was even no
fracture of skull. The trial court also held that presence of the
accused has not been proved by any reliable evidence by the
3
D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07
Uda v. State
prosecution.
The allegation of prosecution is that one of the accused
Udai Lal gave beating by his fist and legs, whereas accused Udai
Lal is totally handicapped by one leg and cannot walk without the
help of crutches . If he would have tried to beat any body, he
himself must have fallen.
The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that
as per the medical report, the victim died because of the injury
which he suffered on the head and there are three witnesses
who supported the prosecution case. May they be closest
relatives of the victim but their statements clearly proved the
commission of offence by the accused.
After going through all the evidence on record, we are of
the view that there is no possibility of taking a different view
than taken by the trial court. However, in revisional jurisdiction
even otherwise view if can be taken by the revisional court from
the view taken by the trial court even then the conviction cannot
be altered and if there is possibility of two views then the view
taken in favour of the accused prevails. We are also of the view
that name of Suresh was not mentioned in the FIR nor the
4
D.B.Cr.Revision Pet. No.1119/07
Uda v. State
complainant in the FIR stated that he himself saw the beating of
the victim. That fact is relevant because of the fact that there is
only one injury on the head of the victim who was of the age of
75 years. The place of incident is also not believed by the trial
court.
In view of the above reason, we do not find any merit in
this revision petition. Hence the revision petition is dismissed.
( CHAND MAL TOTLA) ,J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt
