High Court · 2009

S/n Riirifart-t Micihari snfiri 30 '^?/ i-f. ih?UUl.i£[l;:i E''iES?E iGEU. CLU Rsm Ashraya . @ Bhuru S/; iii uyiiun r^ iyijst ®i ou vrs, ' ^ffli ie'sss i :fi%h l^i E!n?r ^/^ c^^r1hs Er?t!"t i'xu; sECll 0.' T^ OfSU'i tUI Si : i D^v,/^nf^^n ^n^d 91 v.a?5f?; ^•wSSi'i-'- ui^Sr»-i .£-. i Gi: 3 j Moshan Lal S/o Dayaram Nishad, aged 32 years. k"? Kumar Lal, S/o Mehararu Nishad, aaed 27 vears.

16. Siyaram S/oSadhuram Kenwat, aged 27 years. Ram, Johan Dewangan aged 23 years. S/o Ganeshram Baliram S/o Dayaram Kenwat, aged 27 years. Surit S/o Baiha Kenwat, aged 50 years. All R/o Village Khaparideeh Lachkera, Chauki - Phingeshwar, Thana - Rajim Dist. Ralpur.

17. StateofC.G. Criminal Revision Under Section 397/ 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present: Shri Arun Kochar & Shri R.R. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. ShriV.V.S. Murthy, learned DeputyAdvocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawai, Panel Lawyeri for the State / respondent No.1 7. ORDER 116:1 \:f The following order of the Court was passed by Gupta,C.J. ; Learned counsel for the pefitioner are hegrd on admissiqn. 2) Petitioner/ complainant Smt. Bhukhaitin Bai has filed this revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated

13.09.2002, passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Case No.222/2002, whereby respondents No.1 to ]16/ accused persons Manglu, Parashram, Jhanglu, Brijlat, Se^ta Ram, Vishnu, Seeta Ram, Tularam, Ram Ashraya @ Bliit|ru, Dhanesh Kumar, Moshan Lal, Kumar Lai, Siyaram, Johan R^m,| iil):.I.Jltl. Baliram and Surit were acquitted ofthe charges punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3) As many as 1 6 persons were charge-sheeted by the Police Rajim, District Raipur for the alteged commission of the offences punishabte under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(V)ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the accusation of their having committed muijder of deceased Manrakhan in the nightof 09-12-2000. 4) Respondents/ accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by thetrial Court. 5) The trial Court on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial found that the prosecution Has miserably failed inestablishing the above charges against the accused persons. The trial Court,-therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal, of ttte respondents/accused persons. , , 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ comptainant vehemently argued that thetrial Court has erred in discarding.the prosecutijon evidence on flimsy and untenable grounds. 7) The Apex Court while considering the scope of interferen|(% in a comptainant's revision petition against the judgmen^i acquittal in the caseof Ram Briksh Singh And Othjers Vs. i;; 1 1- -<1 I..!:-. 411 r" :ii-; jti;-)i.l..ii,.tlt!!JU ^ Ambika Yadav And Another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC observed in paras 3 to 7 : "3. The principles on which a revisional court can set aside a judgment and order of acquittal passed In favour of the accused are well settled by a catena of judgments. The difficu!ty, however, arises at about the application of the said principles. that there is a statutory prohibition contained in sub- section (3) of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code on converting a finding of acquittal into one of It is true conviction and what is prohibited cannot be done is, has the indirectly as well. The question, howeVer, High Court indirectiy done what is prohibited.

4. Sections 397 to 401 ofthe Code are a group of seetions conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. required to be exercised sparingly. These powers are Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to onlycorrect wrong appreciation of evidence and the HighCourt is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, is the duty of the courtto correct manifest illegality miscarriage ofjustice. ^ resulting ' ,

5. More than half a century ago, ih D. Stephens v. Nosibolla (AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284 : 52 Cri LJ 510) this Court hefd that revislonal jurisdiction isinvoked against an order of acquittal by a when it private complainant could be exercised only in exceptional cases to| is not to be lightly exercised, correct a manifest tci prevent gros^ miscarriage of justipe and not to be ordinarily used] illegality or mereiy for the reason that the trial court has misappreciated the evidence on record. !n K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. 6. (AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412 ; (1963) 1 Cri U 8) a note of caution was appended so that the High Court does not convert a finding. of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction in view of specific statutory .While noticing that it is not possible to lay prohibition. down the criteria for determining exceptional cases which would cover all contingenciesjfor exercise of revisional power, somecases by way of illustration were mentioned wherein the high Court would be justified in interfering with the finding of acquittal revision. The High Court would be justified to interfere where material evidence is overlooked by the'trial court. was held that the High GoyrVwas not In a recent decision in Bindeshwari Prasad 7. Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ((2002) 6 SCC 650 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448 noticing principles lald down in Stephens1 anct Chinnaswamy Reddy^ it justified in: reappreciating the evidence on record and coming toi a different conclusion in a re'/isiori preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code since it was; the order of sacquittai cannot bej well settled that interfered with in revision merelv on the ground of! Relying uponj errors in appreciation of evidence. these decisions, Mr Mishra contends that the Highj Court whiie interfering with the judgment and order the Court of Session has not kept parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction." in view th|6| |^B^U^-.4*-"* l^ltlilali. 8) Mere alleged mis-appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses by the trial Court In vlew of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Briksh Singh And Ofhers Vs. Ambika Yadav And Another (Supra) will not by itself be asufflcient ground to warrant interference in a complainant's revision petition against the judgment of acquittal. 9) Deceased Manrakhan is alleged to have been done to death in the night of 09-12-2000, A skeleton said to be of deceased Manrakhan was recovered after about 1 % years of the incident on 05-09-2002. During the course of investigation some weapons are said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused persons. On chemical examination no blood, much less human blood, was found on those weapons. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/ compiainant; the findings recorded by the trial Court teading to acquittal of the respondents/accused persons; the evidence led by theprosecution at the tria!; and the above-mentioned broad featuFes of the case, we do not firad any good ground warranting interference in the [mpugned judgment of acquittal at the behest of the petitioner/cbmplainant. 11) The revision petition filed by the petitioner/ complainant, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge