JUDGMENT
Sharma, J.
(1). Instant Criminal Revision filed by Ram Swaroop Meena is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Kota, dated 18.9.2000, whereby the trial court acquitted the accused non-petitioners of the charges under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324/34 IPC.
(2). Brief facts relating to this Criminal Revision are that the statement of P.W. 6 Ram Swaroop injured was recorded by Police of the Police Station Itawa, district Kota, in which it was alleged by Ram Swaroop that he is serving in Kota and his family is also residing there. His parents are living in village Vinayaka. On Dashera occasion, he was in his village. He took dinner at the house of Rati Ram, where Brij Mohan, Rati
Ram, and Raja Ram were also there. They took wine. Then Ram Swaroop left for his home. When he reached the house of Devi Lal, after that what happened, it is not known to him. In the mid-night after 2 a.m., he found himself infront of the house of Khuma Bai. Ram Swaroop found that he had many injuries on his body and he was lying on cot. He also mentioned in his statement that after that his brother Ram Swaroop, Babu Lal and others brought him to hospital. He clearly mentioned in his statement that he does not know who has beaten him. He also mentioned that he does not have enmity with any one in the village.
(3). On this statement, Police registered a case under Sections 341, 323 IPC. After usual investigation, Police filed challan before Magistrate, from where the case was commuted to Sessions Court. Sessions Court framed charges against all the four accused persons. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses viz. Khuma Bai, P.W. 1, Prabhu Lal, P.W. 2, Radhey Shyam, P.W. 3, Ram Prasad, P.W. 4, Sita Ram, P.W. 5 Ram Swaroop Meena, P.W. 6, Shambhu Dayal, P.W. 7, Ram Dayal, P.W. 8, Ram Karan, P.W. 9, Mohan Lal P.W. 10, Babu Lal, P.W. 11, Hem Raj, P.W. 12, Jugal Kishore, P.W. 13, Bhagwat Singh Hingar P.W. 14, Babu Lal P.W. 15, Shambhu Dayal s/o Ganesh Narayan P.W. 16 and Dr. G.K. Mathur, P.W. 17. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness has been produced. Arguments were heard and trial court acquitted all the four accused persons of the charges mentioned above. Hence this revision is filed by injured Ram Swaroop Meena.
(4). Record of the trial court was called for.
(5). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and examined the entire record as well as the judgment of the lower court.
(6). It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that he admits that in this case all the eye witnesses turned hostile and no body has supported the case of prosecution but in this case some lathies etc. were recovered from the accused, therefore, the trial court should have convicted these accused persons. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the lower court is illegal and perverse and it should be quashed and set-aside.
(7). I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. The Criminal revision is filed against the judgment of acquittal. Case before the Labour Court was State Case. State has not filed any appeal. Only injured has preferred this Criminal Revision.
(8). In my view the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court passed in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (1), is of much help in the matter. In that case, Hon. Supreme Court has held as under:-
“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 by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub Section (4) of Section 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it can not itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Some cases of this kind however may be indicated, which
would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it can not be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of Section 439(4).
Where the appeal Court wrongly ruled out evidence which was admissible, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in revision, so that the evidence may be reappraised after taking into account the evidence which was wrongly ruled out as inadmissible. But the High Court should confine itself only to the admissibility of the evidence and should not go further and appraise the evidence also.”
(9). In the present matter another judgment of Hon. Supreme Court passed in Kaptan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. (2), is relevant wherein, Hon. Supreme Court held that the revisional power of the High Court while sitting in judgment over an order of acquittal should not be exercised unless there exists a manifest illegality in the judgment or order of acquittal or there is grave miscarriage of justice.
(10). Law is well settled that it is open to High Court in revision to set-aside order of acquittal even at the instance of private party but this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases, specially when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on the point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
(11). When I examined the evidence of the case in hand, I see that injured Ram Swaroop has stated before Police that he does not know who has beaten him and on this statement this case was registered by police but in the trial Court he says that these accused persons have inflicted injuries to him. There is material contradiction between his statement in the court and the statement before Police. Trial Court has examined statement of injured witness and has rightly disbelieved him. In this case many witnesses were produced in the Court as eye-witnesses but none of them has supported the prosecution story. The important witness P.W. 1 Khuma Bai also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Same is the case of P.W. 2 Prabhu Lal. He was also produced as an eye witness but he did not support the prosecution story. P.W. 3 Radhey Shyam has also said that he has not seen, any occurrence of ‘marpit’. He was also declared hostile. Trial court has appreciated the entire evidence and has come to the conclusion that prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. I am of the view that judgment of the trial court is well founded and this criminal revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
(12). In the result, the revision is dismissed.
