IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 845 of 2001 Old Number. Criminal Revision No. 770 of 2000 Girendra Pal. …..…Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist under section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of acquittal of respondent no. 2 vide judgment dated 07.02.2000 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 1997 (State Vs. Indra Devi) under sections 302, 284, 337, 304 IPC, Police Station – Cantt., District – Dehradun. Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.09.1995 Raghuveer Singh lodged an First Information Report alleging therein that on 17.09.1995 between 4 – 5 p.m. he heard that children of Rajesh (deceased – son of Raghuveer Singh) were weeping. Complainant went in the room of Rajesh. On this Indira Devi, wife of Rajesh (deceased) started using abusive language and became adamant to beat the complainant. Wife of Hari Singh told 2 him that Rajesh is unconscious, they should not weep. Complainant found Rajesh lying in the gallery, he took Rajesh to the Doon Hospital. Doctor declared him brought dead. Body of Rajesh was having injuries and acid mark. Complainant has every reason to believe that Indira Devi has killed Rajesh (deceased). After investigation, Investigating Officer has filed chargesheet against Indira Devi (accused) wife of deceased under sections 302, 284, 304A, 337 IPC. Vide order dated 24.07.1997, ACJM – II has committed the case to the Sessions Court which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. From the prosecution side PW 1 – Raghuveer Singh, PW 2 – Mamta, PW 3 – Pinki, PW 4- Virendra Singh, PW 5 – Mahant Vishwanath Yogi, PW6 – Padam Bahadur, PW 7 – Dr. G.C. Paudiyal, PW 8 – Girendra Pal were examined. Learned Trial Court has discussed the statements of witnesses in detail. PW 1 - complainant Raghuveer Singh stated on oath that when he went in the gallery he found Rajesh lying on the ground. Rajesh told him that Indira Devi, Padma, Kanti and Harish have mixed poison in his liquor and made him to consume it, please save me. Thereafter, complainant took Rajesh to Hospital where he was declared brought dead. Learned Trial Court discussed the statement of PW 1 and found that story narrated by PW 1 is not probable and there was no eye witness of mixing poison in the liquor of Rajesh. Learned Trial Court has discussed the statement of PW 2 – Km. Mamta daughter of the deceased Rajesh Kumar, who stated on oath that there was quarrel 3 between mummy and papa. After quarrelling, her mother wanted to consume phenyl, papa (deceased) tried to stop her. Meanwhile, phenyl fell on her (PW 2), on her sister and on her mother (accused). Sister was taken to Doon Hospital for the treatment of burnt by phenyl. Learned Trial Court also discussed the statement of PW 7 Dr. G.C. Paudiyal and postmortem report. As per statement of Dr. G.C. Paudiyal and Viscera report, Rajesh (deceased) was found having consumed alcohol and organi chlori insecticide. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused having observed that there is no evidence on record that accused has given poison to the deceased. This court while exercising power of under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has limited jurisdiction only to the extent to see perversity, illegality and procedural error committed by the Trial Court. This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (6) SCC 650. In paras 13 and 14 observed as under: “13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the Trial Court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re- appreciate the evidence to reach a finding 4 different from the Trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. 14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. At the best the High Court thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the trial court took the opposite view. This Court has repeatedly observed that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has a much 5 wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law, and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction.” In the matter of Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad reported in 2008 (3) SCC 423 in para 19 has held as under: “19. The approach of the High Court to the entire case cannot be appreciated. The High Court should have kept in mind that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it exercises a limited power. Its jurisdiction to entertain a revision application, although is not barred, but severally (sic severely) restricted particularly when it arises from a judgment of acquittal.” From the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) it can safely be held that in a revision filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal, Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence. Of course, Revisional Court has jurisdiction to see as to whether Trial Court has shut out or has overlooked the evidence which can clarify the issue. Revisional Court can also see manifest error of law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by Trial Court amounting to failure of justice. I have carefully examined the record. I find that learned Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional or procedural grave error justifying the interference by this Court under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court has discussed entire evidence 6 available on record and came to the conclusion that prosecution fails to prove prosecution story. There is no material on record which was escaped from the notice of the Trial Court while passing the impugned order. I find Trial Court nowhere shut out the evidence which clinched the issue. In view of this I do not find any justification to interfere with impugned judgment acquitting the accused. Revision is devoid of merit and as such, is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 08.12.2009 SKS