1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R SAWAI LAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1054/2009 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge ( Fast Track) Balotra (Barmer) in Sessions Case No.02/2008 (01/2008). ............... Date of Judgment: 13th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.Pradeep Choudhary for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: The instant revision petition has been filed by the complainant- petitioner Sawai Lal s/o Rana Ram b/c Deshantari r/o Shastri Nagar, Barmer against the order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge ( Fast 2 Track) Balotra (Barmer) in Sessions Case No.02/2008 (01/2008) whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondents No.2 and 3 from the offence under section 363/109, 366 (A)/109 and 376 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.08.2007 PW/5 , Sawai Lal, submitted a report Ex.P/6 at police station Kotwali , Barmer alleging that his daughter Suman aged 16 years had been kidnapped by the accused Ramesh Kumar with the help of Nathu Ram Mali for the purpose of marriage. She was found by the police on 06.09.2007 from Rajendra Nagar, Distt Rangareddy, Hyderabad (A.P.) . On the basis of the report, SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Barmer registered a case No.279/2007 for offence under section 363 and 366-A IPC and started investigation. During investigation police inspected the site and recorded the statement of witnesses. Kumari Suman, prosecutrix was got medically examined and the offence under section 376 IPC against non-petitioner Ramesh Kumar and offence under section 109 IPC against accused Nathu Ram was added. After 3 completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused non-petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Barmer for trial. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Barmer ordered to frame the charge for the offence under section 363, 366-A, and 376 IPC against Ramesh Kumar and for the offence under section 363/109, 366-A/109 against Nathu Ram. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/27 in support of its case. The statements of the accused non-petitioners have been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused exhibited Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/42. The learned trial court acquitted the accused non- petitioners for all the offences levelled against them vide order dated 22.07.2009. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge ( Fast Track) Balotra (Barmer) dated 22.07.2009 the 4 complainant petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence adduced during the course of trial correctly and such incorrect appreciation of evidence has drawn a conclusion that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age and solely on this ground acquitted the non- petitioner No.2 and 3. Therefore, the order dated 22.07.2009 requires to be set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor while contradicting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment dated 22.07.2009 does not suffer from any illegality impropriety or misconception of law. Therefore, it does not require any interference at this stage. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the judgment. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the interest of the public justice requires interference for the correction of a 5 manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has wrong view of the law or misappropriated the evidence on record. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Where the Magistrate came to a prima facie finding of his own, the Sessions Judge cannot substitute its own view, after re-appreciation of the whole evidence, where two views are possible. The Court in revision cannot substitute its own view. The learned trial court , in this case, while appreciating the evidence held that the age of the prosecutrix in the Date of Birth Certificate was mentioned as 1988 whereas the mother of the prosecutrix Smt.Santosh deposed that the age of her 6 daughter was 15 years and 8 months and Smt.Santosh deposed the age on what basis it has not been cleared by the prosecution. The learned trial court also appreciated that the prosecutrix went with the petitioner from Barmer to Ahmedabad, from Ahmedabad to Sangli and from Sangli to Hyderabad and there were no injuries on the body of the prosecutrix with regard to any resistance or struggle and she remained about three months with the petitioner. The view expressed by the learned trial court , while appreciating all these facts and circumstances, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity , therefore, the judgment does not require any interference while invoking the powers under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the judgment dated 22.07.2009 is affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george