HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR VISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Criminal Revision No.45o of 2004 Ku. Roma Karsh, D/o Khedu Ram Karsh, aged about 24 years, R/o ViHage — Birra, Police station -— Jaijaipur, Presently r/o. Kashinagar *‘t‘ Khapara Korha, Post Rampur, Distt — Korba(C.G.) VERSUS — 1. Nohar~ Sai Chouhan S/o Kariya Chouhan, aged about 62 years, R/o Mudapara Police Station — Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 2 State of Chhattisgarh through Distt. Magistrate Korba (C.G.). Criminal Revision Petition U/S 397 rlw 401 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present : Shri Sarfaraj Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State/ respondent No.2 ORDER (13m Novemb‘er, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.Cr.P.No.2588/2004, a petition for condonation of the delay in tiling the revision petition. HIGH COURT OF C DI CORAM: APPLICANT Nonapplicants 2) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the petitioner] compiainant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in tiling the revision petition. 3) M.Cr.P.No.2588/20Q4, therefore, is allowed and the delay V'Z‘ in tiling the revision petition is hereby condoned. 4) ‘ Shri Sarfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner is 4heard on admission. 5) Petitioner - Ku.Roma Karsh has filed this revision petition V against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 13.11.2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, in Sessions Trial No. 104/2002, whereby respondent / accused Nohar Sai Chouhan was acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 read with Section 34, 342 and 506-3 of the l.P.C. 6) Police Rampur after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the reportiof the prosecutrix charge-sheeted respondent! accused Nohar Sai Chouhan for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 34, 342 and 506 of the l.P.C. on the accusation of absconding accused Sunil committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will on 22.07.2001 and respondent] accused Nohar Sai Chouhan having assisted him in his above acts. 7) At the triaL (respondent/ accused Nohar Sai Chouhan abjured his guilt pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the triai Court under Sections 376 read with Section 34, 342 and 506-B of the l.P.C. 8) At the trial, the ,above charges against respondent/ accused Nohar Sai Chouhan were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW—1 M. Praveen. PW-2 Rajendra Kumar Karsh, £PW—3 Roma Karsh, PW-4 Dr. Smt.N.D. Ram, PW-5 Gangubai, PW-6 P.G. Sonkar, PW-7 G.S. Rathore and PW-B Vijay Kumar Sarathi 9) The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. 10) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in general and that of the prosecutrix in particular found‘ that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffered from serious intirmities. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted respondent/ accused Nohar Sai Chouhan of the charges under Sections 376 read with Section 34, 342 and 506-B of the l.P.C. vide impugned judgment dated 13.11 .2002. 11) Shri Sarfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in giving undue weight to the delay in lodging of the First information Report and has discarded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix on flimsy and untenable grounds. 12) The Apex Court while considering the scope of interference in a complainant’s revision petition against the judgment of *c" @ acquittal in the case of Ram Briksh Singh And Others Vs. Ambika Yadav AndlAnother, reported in (2004) 7 SCC — 665, observed in paras 3 to 7 : “3. The principles on which a revisional court can set aside a judgment and order of acquittat passed in favour of the accused are well settled by a catena of judgments. The difficulty, however, arises at times about the application of the said principles. lt is true ‘ "‘ “ that there is a statutory prohibition contained in sub- section (3) of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure i Code oh converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and what is prohibited cannot be done indirectly as well. The question, however, is, has the High Court indirectly done what is prohibited. 4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are a group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to ,act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. 5. More than half a century ago, in D. Stephens v. Nosiboila (AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284 : 52 Cri LJ 51 0) this Court held that revisional jurisdiction when it is invoked against an order of acquittal by a private complainant is not to be lightly exercised, it could be exercised only in exceptional cases to correct a manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice and not to be ordinarily used \1 @ merely for the reason that the trial court has misappreciated the evidence on record. 6. In K." Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of AF. (AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 8) a note of caution was appended so that the High Court does not converta finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot directly convertxa finding of acquittal in‘to afmding of conviction in view of specific statutory prohibition. While noticing that it is not possible to lay ’ down the criteria for determining exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for exercise of revisional power, some cases by way of illustration were mentioned wherein the high Court would be justified in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision. The High Court would bejustitied to interfere where material evidence is overlooked by the trial court. 7. ln a recent decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ((2002) 6 SCC 650 : 2002 SCC (Cri) ‘1448 noticing principles laid down in Stephens’ and Chinnaswamy Reddy2 it was held that the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code since it was well settled that the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with in revision merely on the ground of errors in appreciation of evidence. Relying upon these decisions, Mr Mishra contends that the High Court while interfering with the judgment and order of the Court of Session has not kept in view the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction.” . 13) Mere alleged mis—appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by the trial Court in view of the above quoted dictum 0f the Apex Court in the case of Ram Briksh . singh And Others Vs. Ambika Yadav And Another (Supra) will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in a complainant‘s revision petition against the judgment of acquittal. 1’4’) The prosecutrix is a grown-up woman aged about 21 ’years. The alleged incident of commission of rape on the £ prosecutrix is said to have taken place on 22.07.2001. The First i Information Report about the incident came to be lodged after more than five months of the incident on 05.12.2001. The expianation given by the prosecutrix for the inordinate delay of five months in reporting the matter to the poiice is not at all convincing. The medical examination of the prosecutrix also took place after five months of the incident. 15) On due consideration of the submissions of learned . counsel for the petitioner; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Nohar Sal Chouhan; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of the prosecutrix in particular; and the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondent] accused do not suffer from any such inflrmity which may warrant interference by this Court in this complainant’s revision petition against the acquittal. Vi "iA ‘ 16) The revision petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed ‘ and is hereby dismissed summarily. d I—l Sd/- ”Wi i7, Sdl- Chief Justice “ RN.Chandlakar subtt r" \ , V. i {i ‘ k , e