Imrat Singh vs Raja Singh and Others

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the common judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial Nos. 61/03 and 94/03, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 449 and 302 /149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). The original Sessions Trial 371/01 was decided by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30/9/02, but as the respondent nos. 1 and 2 along with other co-accused persons were absconding, supplementary charge-sheet was filed and S.T. Nos. 61/03 and 94/03 were instituted against the respondents.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the respondents Raja Singh and Kusum Rani along with other co-accused Ramsingh, Ramkrishna, Ghanshyam, Prakash, Raja and Chandrabhan constituted an un-lawful assembly and in furtherance of its common object, trespassed into the house of complainant Santoshrani and while other co-accused were exhorting to burn her alive, Jalam caught hold of her, Kusumrani poured kerosene oil and Kallu set her ablaze. Mulabai and Prabhabai extinguished fire from the body of complainant. She was brought by her brother-in-law to Devri, where First Information Report (for short "FIR") was registered against the accused persons in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 294 and 307 of the IPC and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the judgment and record of the trial Court.

After considering the evidence and material on record, the trial Court held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was not reliable because it was full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. It was also found by the trial Court that dying declaration (Ex. P/18) which was recorded by Dr. P.C. Shakya (PW13) was also not reliable because Dr. Shakya himself testified in his evidence that declarant was being tutored by the family members when he had entered into the room for recording the dying declaration and while she was giving dying declaration, her family members were shouting and telling her from outside. He further deposed that the deceased was telling the names of all the villagers and at his instance, had stated the names of selected persons. He further deposed that finally the dying declaration was recorded in brief as he was fed up of writing names. Considering all this, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court which are neither perverse nor erroneous.

It is well-settled that this Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence, unless the finding of fact is manifestly perverse or patently erroneous.

Thus, taking into consideration the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and other relevant facts & circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for. The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.