JUDGMENT 1. 1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Accused-petitioner has filed D.B. Special Leave to Appeal No. 122/96 as also D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449/96 assailing the impugned judgment dated 2.7.96 passed by the learned Special Judge (Communal Riots) and' Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he acquitted Ganpath Singh as also co-accused Dashrath Singh, Puran Singh, Laxman Singh & Smt. Shrangar Kanwar for the offences Under sections 147, 330, 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Code. 3. We have heard Shri G.C. Chatterjee the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Agarwal, the learned Public Prosecutor about the maintainability of the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal and Criminal Revision Petition as also on the merits of the case and carefully perused the record of the trial court in extenso. 4. It appears that initially on the written report (Exb. R 3) of Mool Singh (PW. * 5) ; who is the brother of the petitioner, Crime No. 259/89 was registered at Police Station, Niwai, vide FIR Ex. P 4 After investigation, the S.H.O. filed challan against the petitioner Ganpat and co-accused Ratan Singh only for offences Under sections 330, 302/34 Indian Penal Code. During trial, after the statements of as many as ten prosecution witnesses were recorded, accused-Ganpal Singh submitted an application before the trial court Under section 319 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for taking cognizance against six other persons. The learned trial judge dismissed that application vide his order dated 8.8.90. 5. Aggrieved by that order Ganpat Singh filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1162/90 Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code This Court by its order dated 28.1.1991 allowed that application and set-aside the order dated 8.8.90, allowed petitioner's application Under section 319 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, directed the trial court to array (i) Ratan Singh, (ii) Puran Singh, (iii) Dashrath Singh, (iv) Laxman Singh (v) Chhatarpal Singh and (vi) Smt. Sringar Kanwar as accused-persons, to summon them and to proceed Under section 319 (4) Criminal Procedure Code Accordingly, the learned trial judge took cognizance against the said co-accused persons. He conducted denovo trial to accused Chhatarpal Singh, who dies during trial. After concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 2nd July, 1996 acquitted accused- petitioner Ganpat Singh and all other co-accused persons. Hence this Leave to Appeal and the Criminal Revision. 6. He conducted denovo trial to accused Chhatarpal Singh, who dies during trial. After concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 2nd July, 1996 acquitted accused- petitioner Ganpat Singh and all other co-accused persons. Hence this Leave to Appeal and the Criminal Revision. 6. Admittedly, accused-petitioner did neither file any written report at Police Station nor file any criminal complaint in the court against the co-accused persons. On the other hand, the police after investigation had filed challan against him and co-accused Ratan Singh only. Simply because petitioner Ganpat Singh was the husband of deceased-Smt. Gulab Kanwar, he can not be treated as a complainant in this case. There is no dispute that the State has not filed any Leave to Appeal against the acquittol of any of the accused-persons. Sub. Sec. (4) of Section-378 Criminal Procedure Code lays down that if an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. Since the accused- petitioner Ganpath Singh is not a complainant in this case, the leave to appeal filed by him is legally not maintainable. Besides this, Ganpat Singh has been acquitted by the learned trial judge by his impugned judgment, therefore, he is not an aggrieved person. Hence this leave to appeal is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 7. The High Court Under section 379 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and the legality of any proceeding of any such inferior court. Therefore, the High Court may suo moto call for the record of any inferior court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the sentence or finding recorded or passed by the inferior court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we thought it fit to requisition the record of the trial court and the same has been received long back. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we thought it fit to requisition the record of the trial court and the same has been received long back. We have examined the record of the trial court and also carefully scanned the evidence recorded in this case and we now proceed on to satisfy ourselves over the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment. 8. PW-5 Mool Singh in his written report (Ex.P3) alleged that on 13.11.89 at about 6.00 PM. Ratan Singh, Puran Singh, Dashrath Singh & Laxman Singh all sons of Prabhu Singh had brought his bhabhi Smt. Gulab Kanwar to village Khardevat in a tonga from Bansthali, that they illegally confined her in a room throughout that night and that after killing her had left her dead-body in his house. He further alleged that said Gulab Kanwar was mentally retarded. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as four eye witnesses. PW-3 Mool Singh s/o Jagnnath Singh did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, PW-4 Shambhu Singh and PW-5 Mool Singh and PW-15 Uma Chauhan ; the father, brother and daughter respectively of accused-petitioner Ganpath Singh made material and substantial improvements in their statements during the trial against accused-petitioner Ganpath Singh and Ratan Singh and co-accused persons. The learned trial judge has extensively discussed, analysed and evaluated their statements in a correct perspective and rightly held that they are not reliable witnesses. The alleged recovery of rope and some letters alleged to have been written by Ganpat Singh, do not incriminate co- accused persons with the crime. 9. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to adduce clear, cogent and convincing evidence against any of the accused person and successfully bring home beyond reasonable doubt offences Under sections 147, 330, 320 & 149 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in our opinion, the trial Judge has not committed any illegality or material irregularity or any error of jurisdiction and the impugned order does not call for any interference. 10. In the premise of the above discussion, Leave to Appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents is hereby refused. The Criminal Revision petition filed by Ganpath Singh is also hereby dismissed. The record of the-trial court be sent back.Accordingly Leave to Appeal refused and Petition dismissed. *******