SEWARAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the impugned order of acquittal dtd. 29/4/2009 by which the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No.3/2009 has acquitted respondents No.2 to 5 herein from the charge under Ss. 302/34 and 323/34 of the IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned trial Court has committed grave legal error in acquitting respondents No.2 to 5 herein from charge under Ss. 302/34 and 323/34 of the IPC by committing manifest error of law as the material available on record has been overlooked by the trial Court and respondents No.2 to 5 herein have been acquitted. Therefore, in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Joseph Stephen and others v. Santhanasamy and others,2022 SCC OnLine SC 90. criminal revision deserves to be allowed and the matter be remitted to the trial Court for retrial after setting aside the order of acquittal.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.2, 3 and 5, would submit that the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that death of deceased Neelambar was not homicidal in nature and furthermore, the trial Court has disbelieved the statements of injured witness Sevaram (PW-8), his son Koushal (PW-9) and Grahan (PW-10) as they are relative witnesses and in view of exaggeration in their statements recorded before the Court, therefore, this Court in criminal revision should not reappreciate the material available on record as there is no manifest error of law in the order of acquittal. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and anothe,AIR 2002 SC 2907. and Sheetala Prasad and others v. Sri Kant and another,(2010) 2 SCC 190.