Yusaf Masih v. William Masih & Ors.

2.9.1996, whereas, the FIR was lodged after five days i.e. on 7.9.1996. Though the medical evidence reveals that there were contents of alcohol in the visra, but, Resham Singh who had seen the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other on 2.9.1996 never stated that the accused was under the influence of alcohol. Had Resham Singh seen the deceased and the accused on 2.9.1996 on the canal bridge and information was received by the complainant on the same day regarding the injury suffered by Amar Masih, then Resham Singh (PW2) would have immediately informed about the complicity of the accused persons in the commission of the crime. But, he never informed the parents of the deceased about the incident on

2.9.1996. Further more, his presence at canal bridge, which is at a distance of about 80 kms from his home place is highly doubtful. The delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR stands unexplained. Not only Resham Singh, but Yusuf Masih himself has stated that he went to the village and asked Ram Lubhaya about his son, then the latter told him that Ashwani Kumar and Billi had gone along with his son towards canal, then nothing remained behind except to doubt these accused as the perpetrators of the crime, but why the FIR was not lodged for five days does not stand explained. It is also surprising that when Ram Lubhaya came to know that Amar Masih had suffered injuries, when he had not seen the deceased after he had left him Criminal Revision No.1245 of 2000 -4- *** and they came to know about the injuries only when his body was recovered from the canal on 7.9.1996. As such, the only witness to the occurrence, being related one, cannot be believed. The trial court appreciated the evidence and scrutinized the same very closely and extended benefit of doubt to the accused. State has also not filed any appeal. As such, while sitting over the revision petition and exercising the superintending powers, revisional jurisdiction could be invoked where the trial court has acted illegally without jurisdiction or has acted perversely against the settled principles of law. It has been observed in case Sheetala Prasad and others vs. Sri Kant and another, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1140 as under :- “9. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been over-looked either by the trial Court or the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. By now it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for correction of manifest Criminal Revision No.1245 of 2000 -5- *** illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In these cases, or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered.” But, having gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, the case does not appear to have fallen in any categories as referred to above. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No defect, irregularity much less illegality has been found warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. June 28, 2010 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge