1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.224/2009 Appellant :- Suryakanta D/o Baban Wankhede, Applicant aged about 29 years, Occupation : Labourer, R/o at village Zanshi Palshi, Tah. Sangrampur, Dist. Buldhana. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Tamgaon Police Station, Tah. Sangrampur, Dist. Buldhana. 2. Sudhakar s/o Madhukar Date, aged about 36 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o at village Zanshi Palshi, Tah. Sangrampur, Dist. Buldhana. ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ [Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Adv. for appellant/applicant] [Shri Y.B. Mandpe, APP for respdt. No.1] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 08.04.2010 1. This is the revision against the judgment and order dated 9.6.2007, passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Special Atrocities Case No.2/2008, acquitting the respondent - accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant - complainant in support of the revision application vehemently argued that the contradictions and omissions on which reliance has been placed 2 by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused person are merely minor in nature and since the depositions of the witnesses were being recorded after one and half year, the Court ought not to have given significance to those omissions and contradictions, which were minor in nature. He took me through the relevant paragraph from the impugned judgment and order and argued that as a matter of fact contradictions and omissions pointed out by the trial Court are not such that testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could be rejected. He, therefore prayed for setting aside the acquittal. 3. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant - complainant, I find that the learned Special Judge has compared the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and found that different stories were narrated by different witnesses and that is why the learned trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution story. The learned trial Court after marshalling the evidence has found that it was difficult to believe the prosecution story as brought forth by the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. 4. The Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy...Versus...State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788, particularly paragraph No.7, has laid down the parameters regarding revisional jurisdiction against the acquittal and I quote relevant portion from paragraph No.7 from the said judgment. “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by 3 the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. ….......” 5. In the light of the above principles set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is not possible for me to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in this revision. In the result, Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. JUDGE ssw