Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 950 (JHR)

Sarla Devi W/o Santan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2018-04-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Add.P.P. for the State and learned counsels representing opposite party Nos.2 & 3. 2. Mother of the deceased has preferred this petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.01.2009, passed in S.T. No. 261 of 2003, by the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, No. XVII-cum-Special Judge, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi, whereunder, the learned court-below has acquitted opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 for the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution case, borne out from the FIR, lodged by the informant i.e. accused-opposite party No.3 herein, on 29.06.2001 at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening his friend Moti Mahto (deceased) met him near Russian Hostel. On his request, the informant sat on the back seat of his motorcycle and went to the shop of the mother of Moti Mahto at Sector-II. On inquiry by Moti Mahto, his mother told that rice and pulse is ready to eat. However, Moti Mahto and informant left the place and after crossing the Project Building, Moti Mahto parked his motorcycle in front of tea shop of Sheo Lochan Sahu. Both of them proceeded towards southern direction from Railway line. All of a sudden, 4-5 persons started assaulting Moti Mahto, out of which, one person was identified by the informant. Out of fear and to save himself, the informant fled away but returned back, when the police jeep reached there. It is further alleged that miscreants were talking to kill Moti Mahto at any cost. Moti Mahto ran towards the tea stall of Sheo Lochan Sahu, but, the miscreants chased him and Banshi Mahto inflicted several knife blow injuries to him. Meanwhile, Sheo Lochan Sahu, his wife and daughter reached there and raised alarm. Prior to the said incident, informant along with Moti Mahto had visited the tea stall and found inimical terms between Banshi Mahto and Moti Mahto. Due to previous enmity, Banshi Mahto committed murder of Moti Mahto along with his associates. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the only named accused Banshi Mahto under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. S.T. No. 261 of 2003 commenced against the accused Banshi Mahto. Due to previous enmity, Banshi Mahto committed murder of Moti Mahto along with his associates. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the only named accused Banshi Mahto under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. S.T. No. 261 of 2003 commenced against the accused Banshi Mahto. During course of trial, the informant, Subodh Kumar Singh, PW-6, was summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, vide order dated 28.02.2005, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 11 of 2004, cases of both the original named accused and the informant were amalgamated and tried afresh. 5. Altogether ten prosecution witnesses were examined, apart from Investigating Officer. Two additional witnesses, namely, Hare Krishna Mahto, PW-7 and Ghasi Ram Oraon, PW-8, who were neither named in the FIR nor were earlier examined by the Investigating Officer, were allowed to be examined as prosecution witnesses. Investigating Officer had also not recorded any statement of these witnesses. Out of nine witnesses in the previous trial, seven witnesses, namely, Sheolochan Sah, Gango Devi, Punam Devi, Sanatan Mahto, Sarla Devi & Dr. Saroj had appeared in de novo trial. Their evidence-in-chief were recorded afresh and they were cross-examined by both the accused. The informant Subodh Kumar Singh was examined and cross-examined in previous trial and had turned hostile. On being made accused, he was excluded from summoning for evidence in de novo trial. Under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, IO was also summoned. Prosecution and the father of the deceased, represented through private lawyer, did not examine him afresh, but, both the accused had further cross-examined the IO. Evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses were analyzed by the learned Court and after discussion of the entire conspectus of facts, it concluded that prosecution has totally failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Accused were accordingly acquitted. 6. PW-1 is Dr. Saroj Kumar, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased-Moti Lal Mahto on 30.06.2001 and found one lacerated wound on the right parietal region of head, fourteen stab wounds of different size on the different limbs of dead body and two incised wounds on right palm and right arm. All the injuries were found to be ante-mortem. Death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage. Time elapsed since death was between 6 to 24 hours. All the injuries were found to be ante-mortem. Death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage. Time elapsed since death was between 6 to 24 hours. He deposed that death was the result of combined effect of the injuries. Post-mortem report was marked as Ext.2. His evidence was similar as in the previous trial. Learned Court on analysis of the evidence of the Doctor opined that deceased had been assaulted and killed heinously and brutally. There is no description of the fact whether there was any cloths in the dead body. 7. PW-2, Sanatan Mahto, father of the deceased, deposed that his son was Jeep Driver of Jagannathpur Police Station. His son had come on 29.06.2001 at 6.00 p.m. to the house with the informant on the motorcycle of Anil Babu, officer-in-charge of Jagannathpur Police Station and without taking food left the house on the motorcycle along with the informant. At 7.30 p.m., he received a telephonic message that his son was killed at Hatia, in front of tea shop of Sheo Lochan Sahu. He went to see the dead body. FIR was lodged by the informant-Subodh. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the telephonic information was received from one Mudrika Pd. Gupta. He failed to say whether Sheo Lochan was at the place of occurrence or not. He had never met with him. He had no talk with Subodh-informant. He had fallen senseless and regained his sense at 1.00 a.m. in the night. He had talked with informant-Subodh two to four times till the date of his evidence. Learned trial court opined that PW-2 was not a witness to the occurrence and had simply received the message of death. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence, witnessed the dead body and became senseless. 8. PW-3, Sarla Devi, mother of the deceased, in her deposition, stated that her son had come on motorcycle along with informant-Subodh Kr. Singh and left home at 6.00 p.m. At 7.30 p.m. informant informed to his Bhabhi on telephone that Moti Lal had been killed. Bhabhi of the informant informed PW-3 about the death of her son. She also went to see the dead body. She came to know in the police station that FIR had been lodged and the police are investigating the matter. She deposed that the Police recorded her statement two to four days after the occurrence. Bhabhi of the informant informed PW-3 about the death of her son. She also went to see the dead body. She came to know in the police station that FIR had been lodged and the police are investigating the matter. She deposed that the Police recorded her statement two to four days after the occurrence. She further deposed that on 10.09.2002 Ghashi Ram Oraon and Hare Krishna Mahto told that Subodh and Banshi killed her son. In paragraph-12 of her cross-examination, she deposed that on 09.10.2002 Ghashi Ram and Hare Krishna Mahto came to her house. She did not ask them as to why they kept mum for such a long time, when they had witnessed the occurrence. Police also inquired from the said two persons about the occurrence on the application of this witness. She further deposed that she also became senseless on seeing the dead body of her son and when she regained her sense, she was in her house. Learned trial court opined that PW-3 was a hearsay witness as she had simply seen the dead body and became senseless. Hare Krishna and Ghashi Ram told her on 10.09.2002 at her house that Subodh and Banshi had killed her son. This part of her evidence was not supported by her husband, PW-2. 9. PW-4, Sheo Lochan Sahu, deposed that he had put his thumb impression on two papers, related to the dead body, prepared by the Police. He expressed his total ignorance about the occurrence and was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the learned prosecutor, he denied the said statements made before the Police. He further failed to identify any of the two accused present in the Court nor he knew the deceased. In paragraph-2 of his evidence in chief, he deposed that at the time of alleged occurrence, his Hotel was closed. Learned trial court was of the view that prosecution had not got any support from the evidence of this alleged eye-witness in proving the charge against the accused persons. 10. PW-5, Gango Devi, wife of Sheo Lochan Sahu, PW-4, also expressed her absolute ignorance about the deceased as also about the murder of the deceased and was declared hostile. She denied that she had made any statement before the Police. In her cross-examination, she had deposed that from the travelers on road, she learnt that deceased was killed. 10. PW-5, Gango Devi, wife of Sheo Lochan Sahu, PW-4, also expressed her absolute ignorance about the deceased as also about the murder of the deceased and was declared hostile. She denied that she had made any statement before the Police. In her cross-examination, she had deposed that from the travelers on road, she learnt that deceased was killed. She did not know either accused Banshi Mahto or accused Subodh Kumar Singh. 11. PW-6, Punam Devi, daughter of PW-4 & PW-5, had also been declared hostile as she expressed complete ignorance about the occurrence. She failed to identify any of the two accused, in the cross-examination by the defence. 12. PW-7, Hare Krishna Mahto, was not a charge-sheet witness. His statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation or any time before. This witness was examined on 20.01.2006 i.e. 4 ½ years after the occurrence. He stated that on 29.06.2001 at 6.30 p.m. occurrence took place. He along with Ghashi Ram Oraon, PW-8, had come to visit Rath Yatra Mela at Jagannathpur. In course of their return journey to their village, they were taking tea. A motorcycle came to the tea shop. One boy remained at motorcycle and other boy came to tea shop after getting down from the motorcycle. Two-three boys sitting inside the tea shop inquired from the boy, who got down from the motorcycle, whether he had brought Moti. They addressed him as Subodh. Subodh replied that Moti was standing outside the tea shop. Thereafter, two-three boys along with Subodh including Banshi went out of tea shop and reached to the boy and assaulted him by knives and iron rod. This witness went to rescue Moti. On being threatened, he went away. Moti fell down and became stained in blood. All other customers fled away from the shop. He identified both the accused in Court. He had admitted in the cross-examination that in his earlier statement he had deposed that he went to take tea in a shop of Sahu Jee at Hatia Station, not at Gumti No.4 where the P.O. stands. He deposed that he knew Sanatan Mahto, father of the deceased, since 20-25 years back. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 13. PW-8, Ghasi Ram Oraon, deposed that he did not know about the alleged occurrence. He was declared hostile. He failed to identify any of the two accused. He deposed that he knew Sanatan Mahto, father of the deceased, since 20-25 years back. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 13. PW-8, Ghasi Ram Oraon, deposed that he did not know about the alleged occurrence. He was declared hostile. He failed to identify any of the two accused. In paragraph-4, he deposed that earlier he was brought for giving evidence by Hare Krishna Mahto, PW-7. He took drink and meal with Hare Ram. Thereafter, Hare Ram, PW-7, dictated him what facts are to be stated in the Court and accordingly, he deposed in the Court as per the dictates of Hare Krishna Mahto. He deposed that Police never recorded his statement. He had friendship with Hare Krishna Mahto, PW-7. 14. PW-9, Sohan Lal Mahto, brother of the deceased’s statement was substantially similar to his mother and father, PW-3 & PW-2 with some variance. He was also treated to be hearsay witness, who had gone to place of occurrence along with his mother and father and saw the dead body of his brother. He had not seen anyone assaulting his deceased-brother. He further deposed in paragraph-5 that his brother used to drive jeep of Jagannathpur Police Station. 15. PW-10, Anil Kr. Dwibedi, who was posted as officer-in-charge, Jagannathpur Police Station, deposed that services of the deceased were taken in case of need as a driver. On 29.06.2001, the deceased had taken away his motorcycle and went to his house for taking meal. He did not return and at 7.30 p.m. he learnt that Moti was killed. 16. I.O., Kumud Kumar, who was examined as PW-9 in earlier trial, was also called after closure of prosecution evidence in the de novo trial. He appeared before the Court but the prosecution or the father of the deceased did not cross-examine him. Both the accused further cross-examined the I.O. Since evidence-in-chief of the I.O. was not recorded in presence of newly summoned accused, Subodh Kumar Singh, the evidence of I.O. was not used against the said accused, but, the learned trial court opined that the same could be used against Banshi Mahto. According to I.O., he received information on 29.06.2001 at 19.15 hours that a dead body was lying at Hatia, Gumti No.4. He reached at the place of occurrence at 19.30 hours and saw the dead body and a motorcycle standing near it. Subodh Kumar Singh was present there. According to I.O., he received information on 29.06.2001 at 19.15 hours that a dead body was lying at Hatia, Gumti No.4. He reached at the place of occurrence at 19.30 hours and saw the dead body and a motorcycle standing near it. Subodh Kumar Singh was present there. He recorded the fardbeyan of Subodh Kumar Singh. He prepared inquest report in presence of Sheo Lochan Sahu, PW-4 and Awdhesh Singh. In course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses. Sheo Lochan Sahu, PW-4, stated before him that he had identified accused, Banshi Mahto among the offenders. This witness also deposed that the informant Subodh Kumar Singh had also stated before him that Banshi Mahto was also among the offenders, who assaulted and killed Moti Lal. I.O. had proved fardbeyan (Ext.1/1), writing and signature on formal FIR of writer constable (Ext.3), carbon copy of inquest report (Ext.4) and seizure list (Ext.5). He also described the place of occurrence. He further stated that after submission of charge-sheet, father and mother of the deceased did not submit any complaint. He also named the persons, who were arrested with firearms on the information given to the police by the deceased. This witness deposed in paragraph-26 that he did not seize blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. He also stated that deceased used to work as police informer. He did not interrogate those persons, who were arrested with firearms on the information of the deceased. 17. Learned trial court, on consideration of the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, felt that there were only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence of assault and killing, namely, the informant, Subodh Kumar Singh, who became an accused and Sheo Lochan Sahu. As informant, Subodh Kumar Singh had turned hostile in the previous trial, he was not summoned for evidence in the de novo trial. Another eye-witness, Sheo Lochan Sahu also turned hostile in the previous trial as well as in the present trial. Statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9, who were father, mother and brother of the deceased respectively showed that they were not witness to the crime. The mother had in her statement stated that Ghasi Ram Oraon and Hare Krishna Mahto had told her about the role of Subodh Kumar Singh and Banshi Mahto in killing of her son on 10.09.2002. Statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9, who were father, mother and brother of the deceased respectively showed that they were not witness to the crime. The mother had in her statement stated that Ghasi Ram Oraon and Hare Krishna Mahto had told her about the role of Subodh Kumar Singh and Banshi Mahto in killing of her son on 10.09.2002. In her cross-examination, she deposed that on 09.10.2002 Ghashi Ram and Hare Krishna Mahto came to her house. She had further stated that since 32 years her family was known to the family of Subodh Kumar Singh and there was no quarrel between accused Subodh Kumar Singh and the deceased. Learned trial court was of the opinion that there was doubt regarding the date on which, PW-7, Hare Krishna Mahto and PW-8, Ghasi Ram Oraon approached PW-3, Sarla Devi, mother of the deceased. On the other hand, PW-9, Sohan Lal Mahto, brother of the deceased, did not even whisper anything about these two persons and that they had ever given information about the murder of his brother. Credibility of the evidence of PW-3 about the appearance of these two witnesses, were doubted on these reasons. Further, PW-8, Ghasi Ram Oraon, in his deposition himself stated that it was on the dictate of PW-7 on getting drunk that he was asked to say whatever was taught to him. Investigating Officer also clearly deposed that mother and father of the deceased never filed any complaint before him. Investigating Officer also deposed in para-57 that at no point of time PW-7 and PW-8 came to him to inform about the occurrence. These two witnesses had come for the first time to depose in Court after 4 ½ years of the occurrence. Moreover, prosecution case occurred in front of tea shop of Sheo Lochan Sahu but PW-7, Hare Krishna Mahto had given no clear indication that at the time of happening of the occurrence whether he was taking tea in the shop of Sheo Locan Sahu near Gumti No.4 or at the tea shop of some other Sahu at Hatia Station. Evidence of PW-4, Sheo Lochan Sahu indicated that his tea shop was closed at the time of occurrence, which created doubt whether he was taking tea in the shop of Sheo Lochan Sahu. Evidence of PW-4, Sheo Lochan Sahu indicated that his tea shop was closed at the time of occurrence, which created doubt whether he was taking tea in the shop of Sheo Lochan Sahu. Learned trial court in the light of the entire evidence and of the material witnesses felt that their statements did not inspire enough confidence to attribute any evidentiary value to believe that PW-7, who appeared after 4 ½ years, had deposed the truth. Statement of PW-7 could not be safely relied upon as trustworthy. Though the testimony of the sole eye-witness is enough to establish the prosecution case but the testimony should be reliable and trustworthy and could be corroborated from other evidence. Accordingly, the evidence of PW-7 was rejected by the learned trial court. 18. During the trial, learned counsel for the defence had also submitted that Investigating Officer had deposed that he stayed at place of occurrence from 19:30-21:15 hours on the date of occurrence, but, during the entire period, neither the father nor mother or brother of the deceased appeared before him. In paragraph-42, the Investigating Officer deposed that in the night of occurrence father, mother and brother did not reach the police station. All the three close relatives of the deceased i.e. father, mother and brother claimed to have received information of occurrence through different sources. Learned trial court also found some inconsistencies in the nature of injuries described in the medical evidence and that of the Investigating Officer through inquest report. PW-1, Dr. Saroj Kumar, found lacerated hard and blunt substance injury on right parietal bone but the Investigating Officer in paragraph-54 of his evidence deposed that he had seen the dead body and found no injury of hard and blunt weapon on any part of the dead body. He further stated in paragraph-56 that at the time of preparation of inquest report he had not mentioned in column No.7 whether he found any cutting or tearing on the clothes of the dead body. No clothes, if any found on the dead body, had been seized by the Investigating Officer. He further stated in paragraph-56 that at the time of preparation of inquest report he had not mentioned in column No.7 whether he found any cutting or tearing on the clothes of the dead body. No clothes, if any found on the dead body, had been seized by the Investigating Officer. Doctor had also not deposed whether there was any clothe on the dead body and those clothes had any tearing signs, which was expected to be there keeping in mind a series of injuries on the dead body caused by sharp cutting and pointed weapons as found by the Doctor during course of post mortem. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the defence had also raised a serious doubt about the time, place and manner of occurrence alleged. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us in detail through the evidence of prosecution witnesses to question the findings of the learned trial court. He submits that the learned trial court has completely ignored the statements of PW-3, mother, who had last seen the accused Subodh Kumar Singh, the informant of the case with her son at 6.00 p.m. and that only 1 ½ hours thereafter she was informed that her son was killed. Learned trial court has also completely let go the informant- Subodh Kumar Singh, who, later on, was made as an accused, from the onus of explaining his statement made in the fardbeyan and also the identification of his signature thereupon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the wake of such description of the occurrence made immediately after the occurrence, the witness could have turned hostile and refused to identify the only person named as an accused i.e. Banshi Mahto during trial. Learned trial court had also committed an error in disbelieving the statement of PW-7, Hare Krishna Mahto, who had in his deposition given true account of the occurrence as eye-witness. All the errors in the impugned judgment render it susceptible to be set aside for the matter to be remanded for a fresh trial. 20. Learned counsels for the accused/ opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have relied upon the findings of the learned trial court and submitted that statements of each of the witnesses has been duly analyzed and considered by the learned trial court before coming to the finding of acquittal. 20. Learned counsels for the accused/ opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have relied upon the findings of the learned trial court and submitted that statements of each of the witnesses has been duly analyzed and considered by the learned trial court before coming to the finding of acquittal. None of the prosecution witnesses, especially, PW-7, who remained the only so called eye-witness, after the informant was arrayed as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failed to inspire confidence. PW-7 had no any explanation for appearing after 15 months of the occurrence before the mother of the deceased and not even approaching the Investigating Officer or any Senior Officer of the Police to state about the occurrence. He was not a charge-sheet witness and appeared 4 ½ years after the alleged date of occurrence. His statement stood discredited by his fellow witness PW-8, who had also turned hostile. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9, who are close relatives of the deceased, had not seen the occurrence. As such, their statements could not be relied upon to hold the accused persons guilty of the serious charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, the learned trial court has rendered a proper finding, which does not suffer from illegality or perversity, which can be interfered in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. This Court under the power of revision does not re-appreciate the evidence like an appellate court. If the finding suffers from any perversity in the sense that the material evidence has not been considered by the trial court or a completely perverse inference has been drawn on the basis of material on record, then only the impugned judgment would be susceptible to interfere. Therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 21. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment and the material evidence on record. We have made copious reference of the evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses examined during the course of trial. Above discussions would go to show that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9, who are father, mother and brother of the deceased, were not witness to the occurrence. They had received information about the death through three different sources. PW-2 and PW-3 had claimed to have fallen unconscious after seeing the dead body. Above discussions would go to show that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9, who are father, mother and brother of the deceased, were not witness to the occurrence. They had received information about the death through three different sources. PW-2 and PW-3 had claimed to have fallen unconscious after seeing the dead body. Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has stated that these three witnesses had not turned up in the police station on the fateful day. PW-3 claimed to have got source of two witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-8 either on 10.09.2002 or 09.10.2002. In any case, these two persons surfaced after 15 months of the occurrence and had no explanation as to why they kept mum about the occurrence even before the father of the deceased, who is stated to be known to PW-7 since 20-25 years. Hare Krishna Mahto, PW-7 had not made any statements before the police or before any of the higher police authorities. Therefore, they were not named as charge-sheet witnesses. PW-7’s testimony is itself rendered doubtful by the statement of PW-8, who turned hostile and further stated that he was asked to depose on the dictates of PW-7 after getting him drunk. Testimony of being of PW-7 as witness to the occurrence is further rendered doubtful as the tea shop where he claimed to have seen the occurrence was not specifically named. If the Tea shop i.e. P.O. was that of PW-4, Sheo Lochan Sahu, as per statements of PW-4, at the time of alleged occurrence, his shop was closed. Therefore, on analysis of the material evidence on record, the impugned judgment does not appear to suffer from any perversity. It cannot be said that a perverse and erroneous finding have been drawn on the basis of the evidence on record or that the learned Court has failed to consider the relevant evidence on record. In the exercise of revisional power of this Court, this Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record in the nature of an appellate court. Reliance may be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kumar and others versus Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited and another”, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 668 and in the case of “Venkatesan versus Rani”, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 207 Paras-9 & 10, which are quoted hereunder: “9. Reliance may be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kumar and others versus Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited and another”, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 668 and in the case of “Venkatesan versus Rani”, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 207 Paras-9 & 10, which are quoted hereunder: “9. The observations in para 9 in Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh would also be apt for recapitulation and, therefore, are being extracted below: (SCC pp. 226-27) “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 in-stances 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. 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.” 10. 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. 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. The reappreciation 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 retrial 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.” 22. In totality of the facts and circumstances, discussed hereinabove, we do not find any such illegality or perversity in the finding of acquittal, recorded by the trial court, in the impugned judgment, which deserves any interference in revision. 23. Accordingly, present revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.