AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.B.K. Vasuki, J.—The criminal revision is filed against the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 in SC. No. 101 of 2002. The petitioner herein is the defacto
complainant, who set the law in motion by lodging the complaint against the respondents 2 and 3 for the offences u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 (herein after referred to as ""Act"") and Section 506(1) r/w. 109 IPC in respect of
the occurrence allegedly taken place on 8.00 p.m. on 15.10.1999 at the backyard of the house of the defacto complainant, in the course of which,
second respondent allegedly insulted the defacto complainant by calling him by his caste name.
The prosecution, in order to prove the allegation raised against the accused, examined the defacto complainant, his wife, his close relatives and
other revenue and police officials as PW 1 to PW 11 and produced the complaint, observation mahazar, community certificate, FIR in Cr. No.
14/1999 and transferred as Cr. No. 668/1999 and rough sketch as Exs. P1 to P9 but no oral evidence was adduced and the notice issued by
Palacode sugar factory to PW 2 was marked as Ex. D1 on the defence side. The Trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence,
disbelieved the prosecution case and found the accused not guilty of the offence and acquitted them. Aggrieved against the same, the defacto
complainant/PW 1 preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of acquittal of the accused is totally erroneous and perverse and without
considering the oral evidence of the prosecution side witnesses in proper prospective and the omission to do so resulted in erroneous judgment of
acquittal of the accused.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/State and the respondents 2 and 3/accused would draw the attention of this Court to the
detailed discussion held by the trial Court and the grounds on which the trial Court negatived the prosecution case as untrue and unacceptable.
Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.
As right pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 by following the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in
D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla,
Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh and Another, ; and
Akalu Ahir and Others Vs. Ramdeo Ram,
the revisional jurisdiction conferred of this Court is very limited in nature and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when interest of public
justice require interference for the correction of manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. It is now well settled that power of
the appellate court and revisional court is not one and the same and the revisional power being discretion in nature, it is to be exercised judiciously
and not arbitrarily and while doing so, this Court cannot reweigh the evidence. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the other authority referred to
therein clearly laid down the nature and extent and the interference of this Court in revision that too with an order of acquittal. It is observed in
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and Another (supra) and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, it is pointed out that an
interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the court had no
jurisdiction to try the case or the court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence
which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which
the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those
actually indicated by this Court. As stated, not one of these points which have been laid down by this Court was covered in the present case.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court has in the judgment reported in Akalu Ajir and Others v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) observed this jurisdiction is not
ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. An
order in revision directing the retrial of a man for second time for offences which could not be said to have been made out even prime facie, cannot
be upheld. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment categorically observed that even in the event of appeal not preferred and the
order not free from flaw that does not follow the revision by the private complainant and the High Court has no jurisdiction to order retrial for itself
as if it is acting as court of appeal.
Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner is to be hence appreciated in the light of the principles laid down regarding the manner of
interference of this Court in revision against the order of acquittal.
The reading of the judgment of the Trial Court would disclose that the Trial Court after due perusal of the entire available records negatived the
prosecution case and passed an order of acquittal mainly on the following grounds the delay in lodging the complaint (ii) the prosecution side
witnesses are closely related to the so called victim and their evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court (iii) other evidence available do
not bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 3(1)(x)(iv) the case is vitiated by reasons of the investigation by the official who holds no
authority to conduct the investigation etc., All the grounds mentioned above and the discussion held if viewed in the light of the oral and
documentary evidence available herein would reveal that the Trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that there are no material to show the
presence of A1 in the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence and the prosecution side witnesses do not conclusively depose against the
conduct of A2 in insulting the victim by calling him by his caste name and there is delay in lodging the complaint before the jurisdictional police
station and there is no explanation offered on the part of the prosecution as to how the first complaint was lodged before Palacode Police Station
and there is absence of material to show the out come of the FIR registered in the Palacode Police Station in respect of the same cause of action
and PW 10 and PW 11/IOs did not produce any record in writing to prove the sanction granted to them to hold the investigation for the offence
under SC & ST Act in the manner known to law and the failure to do so vitiates the entire investigation held by them and the main case which is
the culmination of such investigation is bad in law. It is also noteworthy to mention at this juncture that the State did not prefer any appeal against
the order of acquittal. Though it is repeatedly argued on the side of the learned counsel for the respondent that the evidence of the prosecution side
witnesses is not liable to the negatived, such contention cannot be raised for the simple reason that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction
cannot as appellate Court reappraise the entire evidence. Though two views are possible on the basis of the same set of evidence and one view in
favour of the accused is adopted by the trial Court, the same cannot be interfered with by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. As rightly argued by
the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner has not made out any ground much less valid ground to attack the findings of the
Trial Court as perverse or based on misconception of facts or evidence or by not properly considering the evidence and on the failure of the
defacto complainant to prove so before this Court, the well considered judgment of acquittal made by the trial court warrants no interference by
this Court. In the result, the criminal revision stands dismissed.