@ HIQS‘i COURT OF CR¥§§TT$QARH AT E§L§SPQR El‘ar‘iSmN EENSH . .. . .... . CGRQM: P-EG’NgBLE SHRI RA$EEV GE. C. gnu! HUN 3l.L i g $Hn‘xl V ax aJPusk. cg ,ul KJwn I 2m J: r\ @ilvnA, bzmur 0. i . .. . . . wiminai Revigkm Najg a? 20% Aaa’éicam Shanti Bai, Widow of Eheem Sam/a aged about 39 years, Res%a‘ent ef vmage Dhanpuri Nakna, Poiice Statisn Dharamja§gam, Distmt Ra€garh (Chhattisgarh) Versus Eaa-wmicams Rafi Ram, Son of Ran Sasi Manjhi, a§e$ abcut 3G years, Oacupsztmn — Agncuiturisi, Resident 0f v‘mage 3hanpur§ Nakna, Poihae $tatian Sharamjaigarh, Digtzrict Raigarh (Chhattiagarh) The $tate of Chhéttisgarh Through. me Director of F‘i’osocutioo Couectorate, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ovkion wade? Secgion 3537 of the Code of Criminai Procedure . Wesent : Shri MD Shote. counsel for {he pe Rioner. Shri RS Patei, counsel for fespondent No.1. Shs'i Akhii AgrawaL Panek Lawyef for the Siaiei feepondent No.2. Q oRBER (5m Febmary, 2910) The foilowing ofdey of ihe Court was gassed by Raieev Gute. Qa‘. This is oompiamant’s revision petition against the impugned judgment of aoquittai dated G4:10.2OG3, passed by the Third WTA J AddiimnaE Sessions judge, Raigarhh, in Sessians Tria] No.53/2003, whera‘mj reeiaondent lamused Rati Ram, though was canvicEed under Section 354 of the Ind§an ?ena§ Caae Gar short ‘iF’C’; with sentence of fine of Rs.SOGI—, was acqumed 0f the charaes unde{ Sections 456 ané 376 af the EPC. 2’} Police Dhammiaigam, district Raigarh: afief compietion of investiga‘zio‘r‘l of the case registered on the repoFt cf the pmseoutrix sharge—s'heeted respcndem / accused Raié Ram fer the ai’leged cemmission of the offences panishable under Sections 376, 45$, 452 458 and {SSS-E of we IPC on ihe accusation of his having oommihed sexua} §n€eroourse with the proseouirix m the night of 10m .2003 without her consent and agamet her wEiE. 3) ,Fiesponden? l accused Rafi Ram abgured his gum and péeeoeo false implication to the charges framed by the triet Court under Sections 376 and 4S6 of the fPC. 4t At the triai, the above charges against respondent iaccused Rafi Ram were sought to be proveo by the prosecution on the evidence of PW-‘i Hariram: WW2 itwarinbai, PW—3 Jageehwar, PW-4 Er. BL 3hegat, F’W-S DrB Toppo, PW—G Cherke Ram Rathta, PW-7 $hanti Bat. PtN—8 HC Singh: and F’W—Q AR Sahu. 5) ‘ The trial Court on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the that found that though an offence ounishabie under Section 354 of the IPC was made out against the respondent / accused, the prosecution miserabiy faited in eetabiishing the charges under Sections 376 and 4S6 of the IPC aoainst the resoondent 1' accused. The triai Court, therefore, white ¢ convicting respcndent I accused Rati Ram vide impugned gudgment dated 94.16.2003, under Sectxon 354 of the IPC. acauiited h§m of the charges under Sections 456 and 376 of the IPC. 6) Shri MD Dhate, Seamed counsei for the petitioner vehementw argued the? the tria! Ccurt has erred in not giving due weight to the evidence of the prosecutrix and in discatding her evidence on the ground that there was no corroberating evidence‘to the evidence of prosecutrix in regard to commission 0i rape by the accused. 7) Shri RS Patei, teamed counsei for respondent No.1 on the» other hand supported the impugned gudgment and contended that as the evidence of the prosecutrix suffered from serious iniirmities, the triai Court was ieft with no other option, but to acquit the respondent l accused cf the charges under Sebt‘rone 455 and 376 ofthe F’C. 8) Shri Akhit Agrawai, iearned Pane! Lawyer supported the submissions ot‘ Shri MD Dhote. ieamed counsei for the petitioner/complainant. 9} The Apex Court whiie considering the scope of interference in a compiainant’s revision petition against the acquittai in the case of Ram Eriitsh Singh and Gthers Vs Ambika ‘t’adav and Another. reported in mam} ? SCC u- 36’3. observed in paras 3 to 7: 3 The principles on which a revisionai court can set aside a iudgment and order of acquittai passed in favour of the accused are weii settied hv a catena of judgments. The difficutty, however, arises at times about the apptication cf the said princtpies. it is true that there is a statutorv prohibition contained in suic— / (Q sectien (3) of Seatmn 491 o‘f the CrEmEnai Prosedure Cade on convemng a f§nc§ing of acqui$§a§ inta one of canWcticn and what §s mahib§ied cannot be dorae indirectiy as weii. The questicn, however, is, has the High Com indiyectw done what 3‘s pmmbited. 4. Sections 39“? to 4m of ihe Uode are a gmuga 0f sectians cemerrmg higher Emd superier courts a son: Sf 3uperviaery juriMEctEon. These powers are requirad t0 be exerci$ed sgsaringiy. Though the iwisciiction under Section 401 cannot be ‘mvoked to omy oorreci wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Cour: is moi required t0 aet as a court of appeai out at the eame time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest iiiegaiity reeuiting in gross miscarriage of justice. 5. More than haif a century ago, in D $€ephens Vs NQSiboIIa (NR 1951 SC 196 : 1951' SCR 23474—52 Cri ‘ LJ 510) this Court heioi that revisionai jurisdiction when it is invoked against an order of aoquittei by a private complainant is not to be iigntiy exercised, it couid be exercised only in exceptionai cases to correct a manifest iiiegaiity or to prevent gross miscarriage of tustice anci not to be ordinariiy used mereiv for the reason that the trial court has rnisappreciated the evidence on record. 6. in K Chimeswamy Reddy V's State of Aft gAiR 1952 SC W88 : ($53) 1 Cri LJ 8 a note of caution was appended so that the High Court does not convert a finding of acquittat into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retriai when it cannot ciirectiy convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction in view of soecific statutoty prohibitiohn. White noticing that it is not possibie to iay down the criteria for determining exceptional cases which Q ki‘a'wag . wouid cove? ail contingencies for exercise of revis§ona3 pewer: some cases by way of i!iuetration were mentioned wherein the high Court wouid be justifked in interfering with the finding of acquitta! in revisien. The High Court would be justified to interfere where materiei evidence is overieeked by the triei Court. 7‘ in a recent decision in Sindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs State ef Bihar {new Jherkhane} (2002) 6 SCC SSQ : 2002 SCC {Cri} i448 noticing principies ieiai dawn in Siephens’ and Chmnaswemy Reddyz ii was held that the High Court was not justified in reeppieeiating the evidence on record and coming t9 e different conciusion in e revision preferred by the informant under $eotion 431 of the Code since it was weii settied that the order oi acquittal cannot ‘ee interfered with in revision mereiy on th‘e‘ground of errors in appreciation of evidence. Reiying ucon these decisions, Mr iviishra contends that the High Court Whiie interfering with the judgment and order of the Court of Session hes not kept in View the narameters of exercise of revisionei jurisdiction.” 1G) ii/iere aiieged ride—appreciation of the evidence of the rosecution witnesses by the triai Court in view of the above quoted dictum of the Aoex Court in the case of Rem Briksh Singh and I Gthers Vs Ambikd ¥adav and Another (Supra) wiii not by itseif he e sufficient ground to warrant interference in a complainant’s revision petition against the iudgment of acquittai. ii) Now reverting to the present case, admittedly, the prosecutrix was a grown-up married woman, aged about 3O years. Though the incident of eiieged commission of rape is said to have (V taken place on 10131 .2663, the Fi¥st Information Report in the form of a typed report was lodged at the F’oiice Station after four days on 14.01.2603. The medioai examination report of the prosecutrix (EXPM) reveais that the doctor did not find any externai or internal injury on the prosecutrix. Similariy, medicai examinetion renort of respondent / accused Rati Ram (EXP/3} aiso makes it evident that no marks of struggie or resistance were found on the person of the accused. From the evidence of the prosecutrix iteeif, it is apparent that there wae some property dispute between the prosecutrix’and the respondent I accused. 1.2) Cn due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; the findings recorded by the triai Court ieading to acquittal of respondent l' accused Rati Ram of‘the:‘charges under Sections 376 and 456 of the iF’C; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial ‘rn generai and that of the prosecutrix in particuiar; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Eriksh $ingh and Qthers Vs Ambika Yadav and Another (Supra), we are satisfied that the findings recorded bv the triai Court ieading to acquittai of respondent I accused Rati Ram of the charges under Sections 376 and 456 of the IPC. do not suffer from any such infirmity which may warrant interference by this Court in this compiainant’s revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittai. / 13‘: compiamantis {evision petition against the impugned judgment of acauittai 14) The revision pétition, therefore, is 1§ab3e to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sdl» We, therefore, dc not find any ground far intefference in ihis K7 Sd/— SUNIL KUMAR SH n > Judge ,uChiefusiice i i Z