Madras High Court
Sundaresan vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2013
Author: K.B.K.Vasuki
Bench: K.B.K.Vasuki
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.09.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.R.C.No.756 of 2004 Sundaresan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Deputy Superintendent of Police, PCR, Wing, Dharmapuri. Cr.No.14/99. 2.Nagaraj 3.Nagarani .. Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 30.01.2004 made in S.C.No.101 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court, Constituted under Prevention of SC & ST Atrocities Act, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu. For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, GA(crl.side) for R1. Mr.R.Sevakumar for R2 & R3. O R D E R
The criminal revision is filed against the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 in SC.No.101 of 2002.
2. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant, who set the law in motion by lodging the complaint against the respondents 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 (herein after referred to as "Act") and Section 506(1) r/w.109 IPC in respect of the occurrence allegedly taken place on 8.00pm on 15.10.1999 at the backyard of the house of the defacto complainant, in the course of which, second respondent allegedly insulted the defacto complainant by calling him by his caste name.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove the allegation raised against the accused, examined the defacto complainant, his wife, his close relatives and other revenue and police officials as PW1 to PW11 and produced the complaint, observation mahazar, community certificate, FIR in Cr.No.14/1999 and transferred as Cr.No.668/1999 and rough sketch as Exs.P1 to P9 but no oral evidence was adduced and the notice issued by Palacode sugar factory to PW2 was marked as Ex.D1 on the defence side. The Trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, disbeleived the prosecution case and found the accused not guilty of the offence and acquitted them. Aggrieved against the same, the defacto complainant/PW1 preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of acquittal of the accused is totally erroneous and perverse and without considering the oral evidence of the prosecution side witnesses in proper prospective and the omission to do so resulted in erroneous judgment of acquittal of the accused.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/State and the respondents 2 and 3/accused would draw the attention of this Court to the detailed discussion held by the trial Court and the grounds on which the trial Court negatived the prosecution case as untrue and unacceptable.
6. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.
7. As righty pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 by following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
1.AIR 1951 SC 196(1) D.Stephens V. Nosibolla
2.AIR 1968 SC 707 mahendra Pratap Singh V. Sarju Singh and another; and
3.(1973) 2 SCC 583 Akalu Ajir and others V. Ramdeo Ram the revisional jurisdiction conferred of this Court is very limited in nature and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when interest of public justice require interference for the correction of manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. It is now well settled that power of the appellate court and revisional court is not one and the same and the revisional power being discretion in nature, it is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and while doing so, this Court cannot reweigh the evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the other authority referred to therein clearly laid down the nature and extent and the interference of this Court in revision that too with an order of acquittal. It is observed in AIR 1968 SC 707 mahendra Pratap Singh V. Sarju Singh and another and AIR 1962 SC 1788 K.Chinnaswamy Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh "it is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court. As stated, not one of these points which have been laid down by this Court was covered in the present case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the judgment reported in (1973) 2 SCC 583 Akalu Ajir and others V. Ramdeo Ram observed this jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. An order in revision directing the retrial of a man for second time for offences which could not be said to have been made out even prime facie, cannot be upheld. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment categorically observed that even in the event of appeal not preferred and the order not free from flaw that does not follow the revision by the private complainant and the High Court has no jurisdiction to order retrial for itself as if it is acting as court of appeal.
8.Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner is to be hence appreciated in the light of the principles laid down regarding the manner of interference of this Court in revision against the order of acquittal.
9.The reading of the judgment of the Trial Court would disclose that the Trial Court after due perusal of the entire available records negatived the prosecution case and passed an order of acquittal mainly on the following grounds the delay in lodging the complaint (ii)the prosecution side witnesses are closely related to the so called victim and their evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court (iii)other evidence available do not bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) (iv)the case is vitiated by reasons of the investigation by the official who holds no authority to conduct the investigation etc., All the grounds mentioned above and the discussion held if viewed in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available herein would reveal that the Trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that there are no material to show the presence of A1 in the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence and the prosecution side witnesses do not conclusively depose against the conduct of A2 in insulting the victim by calling him by his caste name and there is delay in lodging the complaint before the jurisdictional police station and there is no explanation offered on the part of the prosecution as to how the first complaint was lodged before Palacode Police Station and there is absence of material to show the out come of the FIR registered in the Palacode Police Station in respect of the same cause of action and PW10 and PW11/IOs did not produce any record in writing to prove the sanction granted to them to hold the investigation for the offence under SC&ST Act in the manner known to law and the failure to do so vitiates the entire investigation held by them and the main case which is the culmination of such investigation is bad in law. It is also noteworthy to mention at this juncture that the State did not prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal. Though it is repeatedly argued on the side of the learned counsel for the respondent that the evidence of the prosecution side witnesses is not liable to the negatived, such contention cannot be raised for the simple reason that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot as appellate Court reappraise the entire evidence. Though two views are possible on the basis of the same set of evidence and one view in favour of the accused is adopted by the trial Court, the same cannot be interfered with by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner has not made out any ground much less valid ground to attack the findings of the Trial Court as perverse or based on misconception of facts or evidence or by not properly considering the evidence and on the failure of the defacto complainant to prove so before this Court, the well considered judgment of acquittal made by the trial court warrants no interference by this Court.
K.B.K.VASUKI., J.
tsh
10.In the result, the criminal revision stands dismissed.
03.09.2013.
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No tsh Crl.R.C.No.756 of 2004 03.09.2013.