JUDGMENT
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. Both the criminal revision applications were heard on the same date and there being common question of law involved, are disposed of by this common judgment.
Cr. Revision No. 211 of 2003
The petitioner, Narendra Kumar has challenged the judgment dated 3rd May, 2003 passed by Sri V.N. Sahu, learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 432 of 19.94, whereby and whereunder the Court below acquitted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under Section 302/34 and 201/34, IPC.
2. The case of prosecution, as per informant, Narendra Kumar (PW 4) was that on 21st October, 1993 at 8 p.m., the accused (O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 herein) came to his place and asked his brother, Rajesh Mahto @ Roshan Mahto (deceased) to accompany them to Dharana Sthal. His brother went with them but did not return till next date morning (22nd October, 1993). The informant went to the house of the accused persons and enquired about his brother but they replied that his brother has not accompanied them. He (informant), thereafter, went to Dharana Sthal and when enquired from other persons, came to know that the accused persons had reached Dharana Sthal on the earlier day at about 11 p.m. but they were in drunken condition and tensed. Informant, thereafter, along with other villagers went to search his brother, at about 9 a.m. on 22nd October, 1993, he found the dead-body of his brother near the cooling pond No. 1 under bridge No. 24. He (informant) saw bleeding injury on the head and abrasions on other parts of the body of the deceased. The informant alleged that the accused persons (O.P. No. 2 to 5) murdered his brother and concealed the dead body near the cooling pond.
During trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Gita Devi, mother of the deceased PW 2 Arjun Mahato; PW 3, Murlidhar Goswami PW 4; Narendra Kumar (informant) PW 5; Praful Kumar Mahato, a seizure list witness PW 6; Kashi Nath Mahato; PW 7; Ram Eqbal Yadav (second investigation officer) and PW 8, Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh.
PW 6, Kashi Nath Mahto was declared hostile by the prosecution PW 5, Praful Kumar Mahato was a formal seizure witness PW 7, Ram Eqbal Yadav, Inspector of Police had not conducted the investigation but simply submitted charge sheet. The I.O. was not examined.
Admittedly, PW 8, Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh had not conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. One Dr. Sataynarayan Lal had conducted the post-mortem but he was not produced as witness.
3. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidences of the witnesses, came to a conclusion that the prosecution though established that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons at about 8 p.m. on 21st October, 1993 while they jointly left for Dharana Sthal from his house, it could not establish other chain of circumstances including the motive of the accused persons behind the alleged occurrence. The trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons are guilty for the offences under Section 302/201/34, IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and gave benefit of doubt in their favour.
Cr. Revision No. 273 of 2003
4. This criminal revision application has been preferred by petitioner, Dawad Ali Ansari @ Dawad Ali against the judgment dated 21st January, 2003 passed by Sri P.C. Choudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 726 of 1993/66 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the trial Court acquitted the accused persons (O.P. Nos. 2 to 13) for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC.
5. The case of prosecution, as per informant, Dawad Ali Ansari was that on 18th May, 1991 at about 4 p.m. in the evening, his Chodhhra Tree Branch fell down due to cyclone. The villagers, namely, Atiullah. Habib Mian, Mushed Mian, Lala Mian, Ali Md. Yaar Md., Maniruddin Mian, Hashed Mian, Kailu Mian, Rahman Mian, Aziz Mian and Ghutuwa Mian (accused-O.P. Nos. 2 to 13 herein) went to bring branches of fallen tree upon which Ash Md. (deceased) objected but the aforesaid persons did not listen to Ash Md. Thereafter, the accused persons brought the fallen branches in front of the house of Ali Md. Ash Md., brother of the deceased raised objection. The village Prad-han, Motilal Marandi, who was requested to settle the dispute, told them not to quarrel and he will, decide the matter next morning but the aforesaid accused persons, who were armed with lathi, tangi and knife, did not listen to the same. Accused, Yaar Md. instigated to assault Ash Md. On such instigation, all the accused persons started beating Ash Md., who fell down in the land of Manager Murmu. Thereafter, the accused persons dragged Ash Md. and brought him near the house of Ali Md., where he died.
Altogether 13 witnesses were examined by prosecution in support of its case. Out of them PW 1, Pradhan Marandi and PW 2, Khaja Mohammad Ansari are formal seizure list witnesses PW 6, Md. Khuda Bux is the inquest report witness.
PW 3, Subodh Banerjee, only proved the FIR. Other witnesses are PW 4, Rajatun Khatoon, PW 5, Naula Mian, PW 7 Kasimuddin; PW 8, Thakur Tudu PW 9; Babuji Tudu PW 10; Dabar Ali Ansari (informant) PW 11; Dr. Kamleshwar Seth, PW 12; Rupu Murmu and PW 13, Rishibh Tudu.
Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PWs 7, 8 and 9 in their examination-in-chief shown complete ignorance of the case. PW 12 was declared hostile by the prosecution. Other independent witnesses i.e. PWs 8, 9, 12 and 13, who are santhals, stated to be present at P.O. at the time of occurrence did not support the case of the prosecution. They having not whispered anything about the genesis of the occurrence and taking into consideration the material evidence on record, the learned trial Court came to a definite conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons.
6. Counsel for the petitioners could not bring to the notice of the Court any glaring defect in procedure or manifest error on the point of law which caused any miscarriage of justice. They only relied on evidences to assail the findings.
Admittedly, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction under the revisional jurisdiction. It is limited jurisdiction which can be exercised only in exceptional cases if there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error at a point of law, which consequently results in miscarriage of justice. Under revisional jurisdiction, High Court has no power to reappraise the evidence. (Ref : Supreme Court’s decision in Chinna Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788).
In the case of acquittal the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. In criminal cases, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the cases and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Such is the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, reported in 2004 (1) JCR 185 (SC).
7. In the circumstances, as it is not open for this Court to reappreciate the evidence for coming to a different conclusion than the conclusion arrived at and there is no procedural defect or manifest error on the point of law and, as such there being no patent illegality committed by the trial Court in any of the case to hold miscarriage of justice, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments dated 3rd May, 2002 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 211 of 2003 and 21st January, 2003 passed in Cr. Rev, No. 273 of 2003.
8. There being no merit, both the criminal revision applications are dismissed. Crl. Rev.