JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision, filed by the petitioner, namely, Hardit Singh on whose complaint, FIR No. 42/2006 for offences under Section 451/323/34 RPC claimed to have been registered in the Police Station, Miran Sahib, is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest), Jammu ['trial Court'] in File No. 147/Challan titled 'State vs. Jagmohan Singh and Ors.'. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge pleaded in this revision petition, it is apt to briefly notice the prosecution story as projected in the charge-sheet presented before the trial Court on 28.12.2006 against the private respondents herein : As per the prosecution, on 14.10.2006 one Jaswant Kour (complainant) along with her son Ajit Singh came to the Police Station and submitted a written application stating therein that the private respondents herein were her neighbourers and that on the said day in the morning when she was sweeping the drain in front of her house, the private respondents with criminal intention started abusing her. She objected and asked them not to abuse her and her other family members. All the private respondents entered her house and with criminal intention attacked her and her husband with a 'kai' and stones and inflicted injuries to her. On raising hue and cry, few persons gathered on spot and saved her from the clutches of the respondents. Upon this information, FIR No. 42/2006 for the offences under Sections 452/323/34 RPC came to be registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was presented by the Investigating Officer before the trial Court. 3. With a view to prove its case, the prosecution produced and examined only one witness i.e. the complainant Jaswant Kour. In spite of opportunities granted by the trial Court to the prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses, it did not produce any witness. Thereafter, an application under Section 540 CrPC for summoning of witnesses filed by the prosecution was allowed by the trial Court, but still the prosecution could not produce any more witness, as such, right of the prosecution to lead evidence was closed and the statements of respondents under Section 342 CrPC were recorded. Incriminating evidence was put to the respondents and in response thereto, they stated that wrong statement had been made by the complainant against them as she was inimical to them and that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Incriminating evidence was put to the respondents and in response thereto, they stated that wrong statement had been made by the complainant against them as she was inimical to them and that they had been falsely implicated in the case. It was submitted by the respondents that since they had tried to stop the complainant from cutting the tree from their land, as such, she concocted a false case and lodged FIR against them. 4. The trial Court, after hearing SPO for the State and the learned counsel representing the private respondents and after evaluating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had led a very weak evidence to substantiate its case and it was not safe to convict the respondents on the basis of such evidence. The trial Court, accordingly, vide its judgment impugned dismissed the charge-sheet and acquitted the respondents of the charges leveled against them. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner, who claims to be the husband of the complainant, who had actually lodged the FIR. It has also been brought to my notice by Mr. Surinder Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents that the judgment impugned herein had also been assailed by the petitioner in SLA No. 109/2013 in CRAA 188/2013 which was not later on pursued and the same was dismissed by this Court for non prosecution vide its order dated 13th July 2021. 5. Heard Mr. Surinder Singh learned counsel representing the respondents and perused the impugned judgment and other relevant material on record. 6. The locus of the petitioner to file this petition is seriously in dispute. In the revision petition, the petitioner claims that he being the complainant in this case is entitled to challenge the judgment of acquittal, whereas, from the perusal of record it clearly transpires that FIR aforesaid was lodged on the basis of a written application moved by Jaswant Kour (complainant). She seems to be the wife of the petitioner herein. It is, thus, not understandable as to why, instead of Jaswant Kour, who actually lodged the FIR, revision petition has been filed by her husband. Be that as it may, even on merits, I do not find it a fit case for interference with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. It is, thus, not understandable as to why, instead of Jaswant Kour, who actually lodged the FIR, revision petition has been filed by her husband. Be that as it may, even on merits, I do not find it a fit case for interference with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Indisputably, the prosecution with a view to prove its case examined only the complainant i.e. PW Jaswant Kour. 7. It has already come on record in the shape of statement of respondents recorded under Section 342 CrPC that there was a previous enmity between the parties and that on the fateful day, the respondents had objected to cutting of tree by Jaswant Kour on their land and it is because of this dispute, FIR came to be lodged by Jaswant Kour. The prosecution was granted so many opportunities to lead evidence, but no further witness was examined. As noted above, even the application filed by the prosecution under Section 540 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the prosecution was permitted to produce the witnesses, yet no effort was made by the prosecution to lead further evidence. The trial Court has correctly not believed the statement of the complainant, who, in her examination-in-chief, has stated that she as also her husband received seriously injuries, but neither any Doctor was examined, nor any medical record was produced. PW Jaswant Kour (complainant) could not even identify the application which she stated to have filed before the Police Station and which became basis for registration of FIR aforesaid. In the occurrence, the weapon of offence i.e., 'Kai' allegedly used by the respondents was neither produced in the court nor the seizure memo prepared by the Investigating Officer was proved. Even the husband of complainant Jaswant Kour i.e. petitioner herein, who is alleged to have received injuries in the attack by the respondents, was not examined. It has come in the statement of PW Jaswant Kour (complainant) that on her raising hue and cry, many people gathered on spot and she was rescued by them from the clutches of the respondents. Interestingly, no such witness has been examined. In this view of the matter, when the prosecution failed to lead its evidence to prove the case, the trial Court had no option, but to dismiss the charge-sheet and to acquit the private respondents herein. Interestingly, no such witness has been examined. In this view of the matter, when the prosecution failed to lead its evidence to prove the case, the trial Court had no option, but to dismiss the charge-sheet and to acquit the private respondents herein. I do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 8. It may be noted that powers of this Court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot extend to the threadbare re-evaluation of the evidence recorded during the trial. I could not find any perversity in the judgment impugned, nor it is a case where the trial Court has altogether ignored the evidence admissible in law. As a matter of fact, the charge-sheet has been dismissed and the respondents acquitted only because of failure of the prosecution to lead adequate evidence. The only statement of complainant recorded also did not inspire confidence of the trial Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed.