IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2002 Kalawati Devi. ……….Revisionist. Versus State and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri M.C. Pande, Sr. Advocate holding brief of Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the Revisionist. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for private respondents. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by Sessions Judge, Champawat on dated 07.10.2002 in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2002 titled as State Vs. Ram Singh and another. Accused persons were Ram Singh, father of Dan Singh and Dan Singh alias Dinesh Singh. They were tried for the offence under Section 307/34 and 354/34 IPC. After recording the statements of the witnesses viz. PW1 Ganga Ram, husband of injured, PW2 Pooran Singh, PW3 Champa Devi, PW4 Tari Devi and injured PW5 Kalawati Devi besides other formal witnesses like doctor and Investigating Officer, learned trial Judge has held that both the accused persons are not guilty where against this revision has been preferred. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of this revision, one of accused Ram Singh has died. Now, sole accused Dan Singh remains against whom this revision has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has read the entire judgment and statements of prosecution witnesses word- by-word, line by line before this Court. Here, it is made clear that while hearing the revision, the scope left for this Court is 2 very limited. Although this Revisional Court can exercise all the powers of Appellate Court while hearing the revision, as adumbrated in Section 401 (1) Cr.P.C. but at the same time, the legislature has enacted sub-Section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. which restricts the powers of this Court, in such a mode that even this High Court is unable to convert the finding of acquittal into conviction. 3. It is well established principle of interpretation of law that any sub-Section or proviso added with the main Section amounts to a rider or exception respectively of the general provision and that general provision has to be construed, subject to the clarification of the legislature as expressed in sub-Section and proviso. All that which this Court can do, while exercising powers of the revision, is to remit the case back to the trial court indicating the material irregularity, inconsistency or incongruity, in appreciating the evidence, which has escaped the notice of the trial court, in such a way that had it not been so escaped, then result of the adjudication would have been quite otherwise. 4. It is settled law that while exercising powers of the revision, this Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the entire evidence, which has been adduced before the trial court. However, having a glimpse over the facts of the case and evidence so adduced in the trial court as well as arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it appears that Kalawati Devi while taking her pets for grazing in jungle both accused persons assailed her. Ram Singh was armed with spear while Dan Singh was armed with knife. Both attacked her and injured her with their respective weapons. They also tore her clothes in order to outrage her modesty. The incident was witnessed by Chandan Singh and few women of the 3 village. Learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused persons on the ground that PW1 Ganga Singh, who lodged the First Information Report, was not the eye-witness and PW2 Pooran Singh, who was a close relative of Ganga Singh, has also not seen the occurrence. They were grousing enmity from before with the accused persons. Litigation was pending between complainant Ganga Singh and accused Ram Singh. Learned trial Judge has also mentioned that Chandan Singh has not been produced by the prosecution. Besides PW3 Champa Devi and PW4 Tari Devi were not named in the First Information Report. Undoubtedly, the absence of mentioning name of any witness in the First Information Report by itself is not a ground to disbelieve that witness but taking into totality of the circumstances and appreciating the evidence as a whole this may be a ground to disbelieve that particular witness, as learned trial Judge has done. Now, the sole injured witness PW5 Kalawati Devi remains, who has deposed against the accused persons. Although there is no bar that testimony of sole injured witness (if assessed credible) coupled with proof of injury can be a ground for conviction but again appreciating the evidence as a whole, if indicating towards doubt in holding the accused persons guilty, then it would not be within judicial prudence to convict the accused persons. 5. Having a birds eye view upon the evidence, this Court too does not find any material irregularity, inconsistency or incongruity in the appreciation of evidence, which other way round ought to have derived by the learned trial Judge towards finding of conviction. As regards the injury report, he has well analytically appreciated the same. It has been deposed that accused person used knife and spear while assaulting Kalawati Devi with an intention to kill her but no injury has been 4 reported on vital part of Kalawati Devi, which might have been sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause her death. 6. Having a panoptic view as above, the revision is bereft of merits and liable to be dismissed. The revision is accordingly dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 16.11.2011 SKS