' Abbas and five others, respondents Nos.2 to 6, were tried on the charge that they on 7-8-1980 duly armed with Sotas and hatchets trespassed into the house of Ghulam Qadir complainant and injured him and Ghulam Rasool P.W.1.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced seven witnesses. Ghulam Qadir P.W.1 and Ghulam Rasool P.W.2 are the injured witnesses. They stated that at the eventful time, respondents carrying Sotas and hatchets entered into the house of the complainant, and inflicted injuries to them.
Ghulam Abbas P.W.3 and Umra P.W.4 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They claimed to have seen the respondents inflicting injuries to Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Rasool with Sotas and hatchets in the house of Ghulam Qadir complainant. Dr, Rashid Ahmad P.W.7 medically examined the injured P.Ws. He found eight injuries on the person of Ghulam Qadir and four injuries on the person of Ghulam Rasool. He also examined Ali Muhammad accused and found five injuries on his person. The rest of the evidence was/is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not produce any witness in defence.
4. The trial Court, vide its judgment, dated 28-4-1982, convicted all the accused under sections 148, 452/149, P.P.C. and 323/149, P.P.C. and sentenced them as under:-- Under section 148, P.P.C. to six months' R.I.
Under section 452/149, P.P.Cto one year's each and a fine of Rs.1,000 each and Under section 323/149, P.P.C.to one year's R.I.
' The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, acquitted the respondents of the charges, hence this revision against acquittal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondents but they have been acquitted without any legal and factual justification and that the prosecution evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned appellate Court. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of acquittal.
5. I have considered the matter carefully. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned appellate Court was quite competent to believe/disbelieve the evidence disbelieved/believed by the trial Court. The learned appellate Court has applied its conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it. The learned appellate Court was of the view that the eye-witnesses having suppressed the injuries of Ali Muhammad respondent,/accused. were not reliable; that the motive was not proved; that the statement made by the Investigating Officer was not properly considered by the trial Court and that according to the prosecution, one of the accused was carrying hatchet but there was no sharp-edged injury on the person of two injured witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also given other reasons for not placing implicit reliance on the statements of the eye-witnesses. The reasons given by the learned appellate Court finds support from the evidence on record and circumstances appearing in the case. The learned appellate Court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with law and the rules laid down by the superior Courts. The judgment of the learned appellate Court is neither perverse nor illegal.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal, so the revision is dismissed.