Animadverting upon the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Assistant Sessions Court, Sankari, in S.C.No.220 of 2006 this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:
(a) The police laid the police report in terms of
Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the following offences:
Case No. Accused Offence C.C.No.220 of 2006 3,4,7 Sec.147 IPC 1,2,5,6,8 Sec.148 IPC 3 Sec.323(3 counts) 4 Sec.323(4 counts) 7 323(2 counts) 1 Sec.324(2 counts) 5,6 Sec.324 IPC 8 Sec.324 (5 counts) 2,5 Sec.307 IPC Before the Magistrate, the accused pleaded not guilty, whereupon, the trial was conducted.
(b) During trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined; Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 to D8 were marked.
(c) Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by and disconcerted with the judgement of the lower Court, the de-facto complainant preferred this revision on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:-
The trial Court failed to take into account the injury sustained by P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 and also the medical evidence supporting the versions of the injured persons. Over and above that, the eyewitnesses P.Ws.8 and 9 also spoke about the incident. As such, absolutely, there is no objectivity on the part of the lower Court in analysing the evidence and arriving at the conclusion.
3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law on the part of the lower Court Judge in acquitting the accused.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would, by reiterating the grounds of revision, point out that in this case the injuries sustained by the injured persons are beyond doubt, as they are supported by the medical evidence. Over and above that, the very fact that the accused themselves lodged counter complaint would display and demonstrate that the occurrence actually took place.
6. Whereas, the learned counsel for the accused would invite the attention of this Court to paragraph No.15 of the judgement of the lower Court and advance his argument that the lower Court appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly arrived at the conclusion that there might have been factional fight between two groups and in that the injuries on the injured persons, referred to supra, might have occurred. In such a case, taking into consideration the version on one side alone conviction cannot be recorded.
7. At this juncture, my mind his reminiscent and redolent of the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:
(i) 2002 Supreme court cases (crl) 1448 - Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerpt from it would run thus:
"13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.
14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself.
(ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 Sathyajit Banerjee and Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it would run thus:
"22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show the settled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice."
8. A bare perusal of those decisions would exemplify and demonstrate that the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction is not expected to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below simply because one other view is possible or a different view could be taken.
9. In this case, the lower Court took pains to analyse the evidence of each and every witnesses and no doubt the injuries sustained by the injured persons were proved by medical evidence. The core question arises as to whether the case can be brought within the four corners of voluntarily causing hurt by the accused or whether it could be brought within the four corners of
Section 304 of IPC.
10. At this juncture, I would like to refer fruitfully the following decision of this Court:
1990 MLJ (crl.) 332 MAD ARULANANDAM AND ANOTHER V. STATE, an excerpt from it would run thus:
"5. Usually this Court does not interfere on pure questions of fact, in revision. However, the exercise of revisional power cannot be barred when miscarriage of justice is patent. The trial Magistrate, while conceding the possibility of the medical evidence supporting the defence version, held that it supported the prosecution as well. However, the appellate judge on pure surmises contrary to the medical evidence, has found that the injuries must have been due to running over by the bus. The medical evidence may have to be tested as any other piece of evidence, but in cases of this nature when the ocular evidence and the medical evidence do not tally, the courts will have to look for some circumstances to lend assurance, to the oral evidence. There are no circumstances available on record to indicate positively that the occurrence could have taken place only as put forth by the prosecution. I am unable to find any rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioners for this inevitable accident could have occurred as put forth by the petitioners as well. This is not, a usual case of hitting of a motor vehicle, because of over speed or otherwise where one can safely presume rashness or negligence.
6. On the totality of the materials placed before this Court, it will be absolutely, unsafe to convict the petitioners. Therefore, they are certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted. Consequently, this revision is allowed. If the fine amount has already been paid by the petitioners, the same shall be returned to the petitioners."
11. As such, it is clear that when there is doubt about the injuries sustained by persons as to whether they sustained injuries in a free fight or group fight or factional fight or due to voluntary act of one as against the other, unless there is evidence to demonstrate that one group is the aggressor against the other, the question of finding one group guilty of the offence would not arise. Since the Magistrate felt that these injuries might have occurred due to free fight between the two groups and ultimately acquitted the accused, I am of the considered opinion that interference with the finding of lower Court, in revision is not warranted. As such, there is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed.