K SULOCHANA Vs. SEKARALIASGUNASEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner who is the mother of the deceased has filed the above criminal revision case against the acquittal judgment dated 11.11.1993 rendered in S.C.No.43 of 1997 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore on averments such as that the accused contracted into a bigamous marriage with the petitioner's daughter, the deceased on 29.5.1994; that demanding money and jewellery from her as dowry the first respondent started ill-treating the deceased for quite sometime; that on 22.6.1994 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused in pursuance of the aforesaid demand picked up a wordy quarrel with the deceased and thereafter with the intention of causing her death poured kerosene upon her and set fire on her resulting in the deceased sustaining extensive burn injuries and dying of shock and septicemia; that charge-sheet was laid against the accused for an offence punishable under Sec.302 of the I.P.C.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the above criminal revision case, the petitioner would submit that lot of evidence was putforth by the prosecution before the trial Court in proof of the guilt of the accused and in fact the prosecution examined 19 witnesses for oral evidence and marked 22 documents as exhibits for documentary evidence; that on the part of the accused absolutely no evidence has been brought forth and inspite of that the lower Court had arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges as against the accused for an offence punishable under Sec.302 of the I.P.C. Beyond reasonable doubt, thus registering an acquittal Judgment on record.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that it is only a revision against the acquittal judgment and no appeal has been preferred by the prosecution; that regarding the power of revision against acquittal, the learned senior counsel would cite a judgment reported in Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another 1968 Crl.L.J. 865, wherein an appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Patna setting aside the acquittal of the appellant ordered by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya and directing its retrial, while answering the question whether the High Court in exercising its revisional powers under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, acted in accordance with the principles settled by the Apex Court for interference with acquittal by way of revision filed by a private party, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: "Looking to all the circumstances that have been brought to our notice, we are satisfied that the Sessions Judge acted within his rights in deciding the case which to us appears also to be somewhat doubtful in many respects and the High Court was therefore in error in taking upon itself the duty of hearing a revision application as if it was an appeal and setting aside the acquittal not by convicting the accused but reaching the same result indirectly by ordering a retrial. In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court cannot be allowed to stand."