Cr. Revision No. 1039 of 2009
Against the judgment dated 8th December,2006 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge-6th Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.
147 of 1998.
Pramila Mishra ... ....Petitioner
Vs.
1.
The State of Jharkhand
2. Nimai Chandra Mishra
3. Vivekanand Mishra ….Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yadunandan Mishra
For the State: Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2&3: Mr. Amit Kumar Das
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
Prashant Kumar,J: This criminal revision is directed against the judgment
dated 8th December, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-6 th,
Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 147 of 1998 whereby the learned court
below set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
22nd August 1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in
G.R. Case No. 64 (A) of 1990 , T.R. No. 101 of 1998, whereby he
convicted O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 under section 498A and 406 of the IPC and
sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years on each count.
It is submitted by Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner that learned appellate court below had wrongly appreciated the
evidence of prosecution and came to the conclusion that prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
Accordingly, he submitted that the judgment of appellate court below
cannot be sustained.
Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record
of the case. From perusal of impugned judgment, I find that learned
appellate court below considered statements of all witnesses examined
on behalf of prosecution and after analyzing the same come to the
conclusion that their evidence is far from truth and witnesses are
-2-
untrustworthy.
I find no irregularity in the judgment of learned appellate
court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any
illegality in the judgment of the appellate court. It is well settled that a
revisional court can interfere with judgment of acquittal only in cases
where some serious illegality committed by the appellate court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner wants to challenge the impugned judgment on
facts, which is not permissible.
Accordingly, I do not want to interfere with the impugned
judgment. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
( Prashant Kumar,J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 15.9.2011
Sharda/NAFR