ORDER
Narayan Roy, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 30th November, 1992 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ara (Bhojpur) in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 1986 acquitting the accused opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 307, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in-correct perspective of the case and has arrived at a wrong conclusion holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment suffer from inherent infirmities and the same is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 contended that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration both oral as well as ocular evidence and has taken a view that the prosecution has not proved the charges against the accused persons. Learned counsel further submitted that there was case and counter case and in the counter case Rameshwar Thakur was killed and the informant along with his family members had faced trial in that case.
4. I have perused the impugned judgment. Learned trial Court had discussed the evidence in extenso, both oral as well as documentary and has critically analysed the same. From the impugned judgments it appears that the informant of this case (since deceased) had stated before the Investigating Officer in course of investigation, that he had sustained single Bhala blow in his stomach. This fact is also apparent from the evidence of other accused persons but from Ex-hibit-3, the injury report, it appears that the informant had sustained more than one injury, all grievous. P.W. 5, the Investigating Officer of the case, as it appears from his evidence, has not found blood at the place of occurrence nor any bloodstained clothes of the informant, who alleged to have sustained Bhala injury, was produced before him. Learned trial Court has analysed Exhibit-3 and has recorded a finding that the same has not been corroborated from the original register of injuries maintained in the Patna Medical College Hospital. The learned trial Court, therefore, has disbelieved Exhibit-3. Learned trial Court, as it appears, has further held that had it been a case that the informant had sustained bleeding injuries blood must have been found on his clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence but non-production of bloodstained clothes to the Investigating officer makes the prosecution case doubtful. From the impugned judgment it further appears that the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W. 5, had prepared O.D. slip for examination of the injured informant but instead of taking him to Shahpur State Dispensary he has taken to Ara Hospital and no satisfactory explanation has been divulged by the prosecution. The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence, as discussed above, therefore, came to the conclusion that the prosecution case is wholly doubtful and, accordingly, he acquitted the accused opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. It is settled law that a private party has no right to file revision against acquittal instituted upon a police report. In the case of Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi AIR 1998 SC 990: (1998 Cri LJ 1409), the Supreme Court has held that it is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
5. In this case it appears that the prosecution case originated upon a first information report and charge sheet was submitted by the police and, ultimately, the case ended in acquittal.
6. On perusal of the judgment impugned, as discussed above, it must be held that it is not an exceptional case as there is no glaring defect in the procedure nor there is manifest error on the point of law occasioning miscarriage of justice. In this view of the matter, it must be held that this revision application against acquittal is not maintainable at the behest of the private party.
7. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.