Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1347 (PAT)

Bharat Sao v. State of Bihar

2013-11-28

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2013
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. – Because of the fact that none of the parties got represented on the specified date, therefore with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor the matter has been gone through. 2. Although, from plain reading of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. the revisional court is found competent enough to exercise revisional power suo motu to test the correctness, legality, propriety of the judgment. Section 403 gives another sort of liberty on this very score. 3. Instant revision has been filed against the judgment dated 30.04.2003 passed by First Track Court, Bhojpur at Arrah in Sessions Trial No.229 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the learned lower court had acquitted Opposite Party No.2 to 4 from the charge under Section 395 IPC. 4. Bharat Sao (PW-9) had lodged First Information Report on 03.01.1987 at Arrah Mufassil P.S. alleging inter alia that in the night of 03-01-1987 at about 01:30 AM dacoits raided his house and committed dacoity. During course thereof, he along with his family members have identified Opposite Party No.2 to 4 who are his co-villager having boxes on their heads as well as being armed with firearm. The villagers chased but as the miscreants have fired in retaliation on account thereof the villagers retreated and made safe escape to the dacoits. 5. After registration of Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 287 the case was investigated upon and concluded by way of submission of final report. However, as the protest petition was pending since before accordingly, the same was treated as complaint petition and after conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC was taken up for which only Opposite Party No.2 to 4 were summoned to face trial after whose appearance, the case was committed whereunder the trial ended with acquittal of Opposite Party No.2 to 4. Hence this revision. 6. After going through the grounds of revision, it is evident that the petitioner / complainant alleged that in spite of examination of ten witnesses in support of the prosecution case but the learned lower court without adverting to the evidence available on the record, acquitted the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 without assigning any cogent reason. Hence this revision. 6. After going through the grounds of revision, it is evident that the petitioner / complainant alleged that in spite of examination of ten witnesses in support of the prosecution case but the learned lower court without adverting to the evidence available on the record, acquitted the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 without assigning any cogent reason. There happens to be wrong appreciation of the evidence by the learned lower court over manner, source of identification and in this context it has been placed that the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 being the co-villager and being well known to each other, were seen from close proximity and therefore, were identifiable even in absence of source of identification from their gait, appearance, speech. Moreover, source of identification had properly been disclosed during course of evidence. 7. Coming to the evidence, it has also been pleaded that there happens to be consistent evidence on the record that Opposite Party No.2 to 4 along with other have committed Dacoity and during course thereof they were identified. Therefore, the factum of Dacoity as well as theme of identification happens to be there. 8. Then under para-15 of the petition it has been submitted that so many documents were filed before the learned lower court under list of document which were not at all exhibited and the aforesaid documents were returned back after delivering of judgment. 9. For want of absence of Opposite Party No.2 to 4, the grounds could not be perceived on their behalf. 10. From the lower court record, it is apparent that 10 PWs have been examined on behalf of prosecution and it is also admitted that all the witnesses are kith and kin. It is also apparent right from the protest petition to the evidence of the PWs that both the parties are on litigating terms on account of land having been purchased by Ramesh Prasad, brother of informant from Tauhid Miya. In the aforesaid background the defence had examined 5 DWs to say that no occurrence of the Dacoity was ever committed in the night of 03-01-1987 and the accused persons were implicated on account of dispute arisen due to purchase of land by Ramesh from Tauhid which happens to be Gairmajarua land and the village school stands over the same. 11. 11. The scope of revisional jurisdiction while dealing with judgment of acquittal has been considered times without number by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Recently in Venkatesan vs. Rani reported in 2013(4) PLJR (SC) 154 [: 2013(4) BLJ 74 (SC)] it has been explained in following manner: – “6. To answer the questions that have arisen in the present case, as noticed at the very outset, the extent and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly in the context of exercise thereof in respect of a judgment of acquittal, may be briefly noticed. The law in this regard is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. Illustratively, as also chronologically, the decisions rendered in Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu, Akalu Ahir vs. Ramdeo Ram, Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. Sarju Singh, K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of A.P. and Logendranath Jha vs. Polai Lal Biswas may be referred to. Specifically and for the purpose of a detailed illumination on the subject the contents of paras 8 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Akalu Ahir vs. Ramdeo Ram (supra) may be usefully extracted below: – “8. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision: – (i) Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; (ii) Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; (iii) Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible; (iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and (v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” “10. These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” “10. No doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial Judge in the case in hand is not perfect or free from flaw and a Court of appeal may well have felt justified in disagreeing with its conclusion, but from this it does not follow that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court is entitled to re-appraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a Court of appeal and then order a re-trial. It is unfortunate that a serious offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in the matter of election to the office of village Mukhia, should go unpunished. But that can scarcely be a valid ground for ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated by this Court.” The observations in para 9 in the case of Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh would also be apt for recapitulation and, therefore, are being extracted below. “9. Coming to the ambit of power of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial.” 7. The above consideration would go to show that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts while examining an order of acquittal is extremely narrow and ought to be exercised only in cases where the Trial Court had committed a manifest error of law or procedure or had overlooked and ignored relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High Court must refrain from while examining an order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Code. Needless to say, if within the limited parameters, interference of the High Court is justified the only course of action that can be adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the acquittal. As the language of Section 401 of the Code makes it amply clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.” 12. Taking into account the aforesaid settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, now the judgment impugned along with relevant materials available on the lower court record has been gone through. From the judgment of the learned lower court, it is apparent that the learned lower court failed to discuss, analyze the evidences of the witnesses independently rather as is evident from para-8 of the judgment dealt with in clumsy manner. From the judgment of the learned lower court, it is apparent that the learned lower court failed to discuss, analyze the evidences of the witnesses independently rather as is evident from para-8 of the judgment dealt with in clumsy manner. In para-9 of the judgment, it is apparent that the learned lower court had put stress over the manner of identification more particularly, relating to tendering the same before the I.O. although was well aware of the fact that after submission of final report the case proceeded ahead on the basis of protest/complaint petition and on account thereof, certainly there happens to be lapses on the part of learned lower court. 13. The orders impugned in the aforesaid background loosen its correctness, viability and on account thereof, attracts interference at this level. Accordingly, the judgment impugned is set aside. Petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower court to hear argument of both the sides and pass judgment afresh in accordance with law. Opposite Party No.2 to 4 are directed to present before the learned lower court and in case there happens to be continued absence then, in that event, the learned lower court will procure their attendance through the process in accordance with law.