1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO.66/2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO. /2009 Applicant :- Sonaji Bhiwaji Ingole, aged about 65 years, R/o Nimbi (Malokar), Tah. Balapur, Distt. Akola. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. Brahma Bhagwan Ingole, Aged about 32 years, Oc. Labourer, 2. Sau. Lata Brahma Ingole, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Labourer. 3. Sheshrao Bhagwan Ingole, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Labouarer. R. 1 to 3 R/o Nimbi Malokar, Tq. Balapur, Distt. Akola. 4. State of Maharashtra, through P.S. Balapur, Distt. Akola. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.D. Chopde, Adv. for applicant] [Shri A.D. Sonak, APP for respdt. No.4] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 09.03.2010 1. Heard. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant and having gone through the contents of the application, I find that good and sufficient grounds exist for condoning the delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Criminal Application is allowed. Criminal Application stands disposed of. 2 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. /2009 1. Heard. 2. Taken up for admission hearing in order matters with consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties. 3. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 3.10.2008, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No.27/2007. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find that the learned appellate Court has made detailed discussion about the evidence tendered by the prosecution before the trial Court. The appellate Court found that right from the F.I.R., the prosecution story was doubtful as even in respect of the injuries variance was found in the description by the complainant. The appellate Court further found that the discrepancies are material and the trial Court was wrong in ignoring them. 5. The Submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is perversity on the part of the appellate Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence does not appeal to me, having checked up the reasoning given by the appellate Court. Even if, it is possible to take another view of the matter, as per the settled legal position set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy...Versus...State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788, particularly paragraph No.7, which is quoted below, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the acquittal in revision. “7. 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 3 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. ….......” 6. For the above reasons, therefore, I find no merit in the present criminal revision. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE SSW