1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 23 of 2006 Sheikh Nazir S/o Sheikh Karim, Aged about 47 years, Occ-Business, R/o Near Apsara Talkies, Sangam Chowk, Yavatmal. ... ... … APPLICANT. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Chandur (Rly.), Amravati. 2. Sheikh Shakil S/o Sheikh Sikandar, aged about 26 years, 3. Sheikh Sikandar S/o Sheikh Chotu, Aged about 55 years, 4. Sheikh Riyaz S/o Sheikh Sikandar, Aged about 23 years, 5. Sheikh Siraj S/o Sheikh Sikandar, Aged about 21 years, 6. Bilkisbee W/o Sheikh Sikandar, Aged about 50 years, All R/o Indira Nagar,Chandur (Rly) Tahsil-Chandur (Rly), Distt. Amravati. … ... … NON-APPLICANTS. ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. K. Bhaskar, Adv holding for Mr. V.M. Deshpande, adv.. Mr. D.B. Patel. learned AGP for non-applicant no.1. Mr. D.N. Upadhye, Adv. for non-applicant no. 2 to 6. 2 CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 29th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2005 in Sessions Trial No. 208/2004 passed by 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, who acquitted the accused/non-applicants in the present application, of the offences punishable under section 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the application, the learned counsel for the revisioner/applicant vehemently argued that the court below has committed an error in not accepting the evidence of three prosecution witnesses namely father, mother and brother. According to him, these three witnesses father, mother and brother categorically deposed about the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry and upon failure to pay the same the deceased Shamim was assaulted and not given food. It is argued that the court below committed error in treating the evidence of P.W.3 Shaifuddhin as hearsay evidence. The counsel then argued that there is an error on the part of court below in the matter of appreciation of evidence and therefore the error in acquitting the accused persons deserves to be corrected by this court in the revisional jurisdiction. 2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non- 3 applicants 2 to 6, who were the accused in the Sessions Trial, opposed the revision and argued that the evidence of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution is most general in nature and these witnesses have not specifically deposed about the facts constituting the offences apart from the fact there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses. The counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of revision application. 3. I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal. I have also gone through the evidence of four witnesses i.e. father, mother, brother and P.W. 3 Shaifuddhin. Evidence of P.W. 3 Shaifuddhin is clearly hearsay and, therefore, no fault can be found with the trial court in holding so. P.W.3 Shaifuddhin states that he was told by the father of Shamim about the demand of dowry and ill treatment and therefore the evidence was obviously hearsay. Evidence of father, mother and brother too is general in nature without any specification against the particular accused or the particular date of incident of demand and assault etc. That apart, there is inconsistent evidence of the witnesses, if compared, adduced in the trial court. Further, the two witnesses i.e. father and mother of the deceased have improved their version and those omissions were brought on record which made their testimony infirm. Keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the apex court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy 4 Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788, particularly paragraph no. 7, I find that no error has been committed by the trial court in acquitting the accused persons. I quote relevant portion from para 7 of the said judgment which reads thus: “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 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 4. For the above reasons, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present revision application. In the result, I make the following order. ORDER Revision application no. 23 of 2006 is dismissed. Rule discharged. JUDGE Hirekhan