Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1459 of 2005 Revisionist :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Ram Rawat,S.P. Singh Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant against the judgment and acquittal order dated 10.2.2005 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra in S.C.S.T. No. 8 of 2002 under Section 323, 452, 376 I.P.C. Police Station -Achhanera, District -Agra acquitting the opposite party nos. 2 and 3..
I have heard Sri Shri Ram Rawat,, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge is bad in eye of law. Learned court below did not go through the evidence produced by the prosecution. There is sufficient evidence against the opposite party and they have actively participated in the commission of offence and inflicted injuries to the victim. Prosecution has proved the evidence on record before the trial court and prosecution P.W.- 2 has specifically named the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 in the commission of rape against her will. Trial court did notice the evidence of prosecution, which was given by her and wrongly acquitted the opposite party and requested that order passed by the trial court is against the settled principle of law. So this revision be allowed and order passed on 10.2.2005 may be set aside.
On the perusal of record it transpires that in this case date of incident is 29.1.2001 at 6:30 p.m. and F.I.R. was registered on 30.1.2001 at 12:15 p.m.. The main allegation of first informant P.W.-1 is that accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 Rajveer and Ram Prakash committed rape to his wife Bhagwati against her will and hurling abuse her with caste remark and also intentionally assaulted Bhagwati and due to which Bhagwati was inflicted with injury.
Occurrence of this case is of 29.1.2001 at 6:30 p.m. but report has been lodged after 25 hours. There is no explanation regarding delay in this case. In this case no eye witness has been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also accepted that offence of rape has not been proved by the prosecution.
Regarding casting simple injury on Bhagwati prosecution failed to prove the injury inflicted upon Bhagwati. Regarding prove of hurling filthy language and caste remark, there is doubt about against remark. Learned court below doubted about the caste remark. Learned court below after appreciation of evidence acquitted the revisionist. Finding of fact recorded by the court below will be disturbed where there are some perversity, as in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph no. 18 that normally revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. should be exercised on a question of law however when factual appreciation is involved then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically power is required to be exercised so justice have been done and there is no abuse of process. Mainly appreciation or suspicion of the same would not sufficient ground for interference.
When the findings by the court below is based on material evidence on record. Judicial power exercised by the court below is perverse then revisional court can interfere in exercise of its power under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
After perusal of the record it appears that there is no illegality or irregularity against the order passed by the trial court. The finding recorded by the learned court below is with proper appreciation of findings recorded. Learned court below has exercised its discretion with diligently and with proper jurisdiction. The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019.
A. Pt. Singh