Shri Sheshrao vs The State of Maharashtra and Others

A.P. Bhangale, J.—Revision applicants as well as their Advocates remained absent. Heard submissions advanced by Mr D B Yengal, learned APP representing the State of Maharashtra who, at the outset, submitted that no Criminal Appeal was filed in order to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, whereby the original accused Nos. 1 to 9 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short " IPC") . According to Mr. Yengal, the learned APP of Gadchiroli had informed the the Office of Government Pleader by letter bearing Outward No. DGP /PP /173 /2008 dated 14.2.2008 that in the present case, the Law and judiciary Department did not consider it a fit case to file an appeal to the High Court.

It appears that the instant Revision Application was preferred by the father of alleged victim Manjusha, probably due to emotional outbursts. Mr. Mardikar, learned Advocate representing the Respondents 2 to 10 submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from serious error of law or misappreciation of evidence. There was an inordinate delay of about 5 months even to lodge first information report, which itself was fatal to the prosecution case or at least to cause suspicion regarding genuineness of the accusations.

On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned trial Judge did consider the evidence led by the prosecution in detail and appreciated the same with reference to the charge framed against the accused. After considering the relevant provisions of law including the Dowry Prohibition Act, the learned trial Judge appears to have arrived at the conclusion which appears only logical conclusion of acquittal. Even otherwise, this Court would be slow to disturb the judgment and order of the acquittal at the instance of a private party when State did not find it fit to appeal against the impugned judgment and order. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is permissible only in exceptional cases when there is glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on a point of law and if consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. There are inbuilt limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside the finding of acquittal in Revision unless a very exceptional case has been carved out, i.e. manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.

The Revision applicant as well as his Advocate chose to remain absent despite sufficient opportunity given to them. Learned Advocate for the revision applicant remained absent on 21.3.2011 as well as today i.e. 22.3.2011. Hence Revision application is dismissed.