Citation : 2005 Local Law (CG) 191
In a criminal revision arising from Rajnandgaon, the Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to interfere with an order acquitting six accused of charges under Sections 147, 323 read with 34, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Dhirendra Mishra dismissed the revision at the motion stage, holding that no ground was made out to upset an acquittal through revisional jurisdiction.
The challenge targeted a judgment dated 01 March 2005 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 504/02, which had acquitted non-applicants 2 to 7. The complainant argued that the trial court disbelieved prosecution witnesses solely because they were related to the complainant and that the absence of independent eyewitnesses could not, by itself, erode their testimony. It was also urged that the allegation of outraging modesty was supported by multiple witnesses and was rejected without cogent reasons.
After hearing both sides and reviewing the record, the High Court noted that the trial court had given detailed reasons. These included the absence of independent witnesses, material omissions in key testimonies, medical evidence that recorded no injuries on the complainant, and an admitted background dispute over irrigation that could explain hostility between the parties. The court concluded that the trial court had appreciated the evidence comprehensively and that a re-assessment on revision would be impermissible.
Justice Mishra relied on settled principles governing interference with acquittals in revision, as crystallized by the Supreme Court in decisions such as D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Mahendra Pratap v. Sarju Singh, and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram. Those rulings make clear that revisional courts step in only in exceptional situations, for example where the trial court lacked jurisdiction, wrongly excluded evidence, or overlooked material evidence. None of those contingencies arose here. Finding no exceptional circumstance to justify revisional interference, the High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Case Details : Cr. Rev. No. 199 of 2005, Rukhamani Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (27.06.2005)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S.C. Varma, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. R.R. Sinha, P.L.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 147; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 323; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 354
Cases Referred:
D. Stephens vs. Nosibolla ; K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ; Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and Anr. ; Akalu Ahir and Ors. vs. Ramdeo Ram
======
भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 147, 323 सहपठित 34 और 354 के तहत दर्ज अपराध।
न्यायालय ने कहा कि निचली अदालत ने उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का विस्तार से मूल्यांकन किया था और गवाहों के बयान पर चर्चा करने के बाद आरोपी व्यक्तियों को बरी कर दिया था। पुनरीक्षण अधिकार क्षेत्र का उपयोग करते समय हाई कोर्ट दोबारा साक्ष्यों की सराहना नहीं कर सकता और न ही वह ट्रायल कोर्ट के निष्कर्षों की जगह अपने निष्कर्ष रख सकता है।
इस आधार पर पुनरीक्षण याचिका को खारिज कर दिया गया।
