Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 261 (CHH)

LAXMAN DAS. v. KARUNANIDHI NIRALA

2009-10-06

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2009
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J.:- 1. Smt. Mala Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on admission. 2. Petitioner/complainant Laxman Das has filed this revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 12/2008, whereby respondent/accused Karunanidhi Nirala was acquitted of the charges under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Police Sarangarh after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of PW -1 Manbodh charge-sheeted respondent/accused Karunanidhi Nirala for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.PC. on the accusation of his having committed murder of deceased Tikeshwar @ Murari in the intervening night of 10th and 11th of April, 2008. 4. Respondent/accused Karunanidhi Nirala abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. 5. At the trial, the above charges against the accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW -1 Manbodh, PW -2 Ravishankar Aditya, PW-3 Sharad Kumar Yadav, PW-4 Kaushalya Das, PW-5 Kishore Yadav, PW-6 Uddavlal, PW -7 Alok Kesharwani, PW -8 Da1chand Patel, PW -9 Sajan Sahu, PW-10 Ashok Das, PW -11 Ramnath Benarjee, PW -12 Jagbandhu Patel, PW13 Tulsiram Jaiswal, PW -14 Kumari Kiran Nirala, PW -15 Pratap Mahilane, PW16 Kamal Kumar, PW -17 Doop Lal, PW -18 Sahadev and PW -19 Dr. M.K. Manhar. 6. Of the above-named prosecution witnesses, PW-2 Ravishankar Aditya, PW -3 Sharad Kumar Yadav, PW -4 Kaushalya Das, PW -5 Kishore Yadav, PW7 Alok Kesharwani, PW -10 Ashok Das, PW -13 Tulsiram Jaiswal, PW -14 Kumari Kiran Nirala, PW -15 Pratap Mahilane and PW -17 Doop Lal did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 7. The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses held that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against accused Karunanidhi Nirala. The trial Court, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent/accused Karunanidhi Nirala. 8. Smt. Mala Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds. The trial Court, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent/accused Karunanidhi Nirala. 8. Smt. Mala Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds. Learned counsel further submitted that the irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the case ought to have been ignored by the trial Court. 9. The Apex Court while considering the scope of interference in a complainant's revision petition against the judgment of acquittal in the case of Ram Briksh Singh And Others Vs. Ambika Yadav And Another-1, observed in paras 3 to 7: 1. (2004) 7 SCC 665 "3. The principles on which a revisional court can set aside a judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused are well settled by a catena of judgments. The difficulty, however, arises at times about the application of the said principles. It is true that there is a statutory prohibition contained in sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code on converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and what is prohibited cannot be done indirectly as well. The question, however, is, has the High Court indirectly done what is prohibited. 4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are a group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. 5. More than half a century ago, in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla (AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284 : 52 Cri LJ 510) this Court held that revisional jurisdiction when it is invoked against an order of acquittal by a private complainant is not to be lightly exercised, it could be exercised only in exceptional cases to correct a manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice and not to be ordinarily used merely for the reason that the trial court has misappreciated the evidence on record. 6. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. 6. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 8) a note of caution was appended so that the High Court does not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction in view of specific statutory prohibition. While noticing that it is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for exercise of revisional power, some cases by way of illustration were mentioned wherein the high Court would be justified in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision. The High Court would be justified to interfere where material evidence is overlooked by the trial court. 7. In a recent decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ((2002) 6 SCC 650 ; 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448 noticing principles laid down in Stephens I and Chinnaswamy Roddi it was held that the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code since it was well settled that the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with in revision merely on the ground of errors in appreciation of evidence. Relying upon these decisions, Mr. Mishra contends that the High Court white interfering with the judgment and order of the Court of Session has not kept in view the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction." 10. Mere alleged mis-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by the trial Court in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Briksh Singh And Others Vs. Ambika Yadav And Another-1 (Supra) will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in a complainant's revision petition against the judgment of acquittal. 11. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account available in the case to connect accused Karunanidhi Nirala with the commission of murder of deceased Tikeshwar @ Murari. The entire prosecution case against the accused before the trial Court rested on circumstantial evidence alone. 11. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account available in the case to connect accused Karunanidhi Nirala with the commission of murder of deceased Tikeshwar @ Murari. The entire prosecution case against the accused before the trial Court rested on circumstantial evidence alone. As most of the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, the alleged incriminating circumstances against respondent/accused Karunanidhi Nirala could not be established by the prosecution. 12. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner! complainant; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent/accused Karunanidhi Nirala; and the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, we do not find any ground for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 13. The revision petition filed by the petitioner/complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Revision Dismissed.