RAMASAMI Vs. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against an order of acquittal. The petitioner in this case was one of the accused in C.C. No. 30 of 1977 on the file of the Sessions Court of Tiruchirapalli. In that case the petitioner herein along with three others have been convicted for an offence under s. 302, I.P.C. In that case, the medical certificates pertaining to injuries sustained by five of the petitioners have been filed and marked. In this counter case for an offence under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 425 and 511, I.P.C., there are seventeen accused. All of them have been acquitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, No I, Tiruchirapalli by judgment, dated 4th February, 1982. The complainant, who is A3 in the other case, has filed this revision petition. His main ground of revision is that the trial Court has acquitted the accused mainly for the reason that there was no medical evidence in respect of injuries sustained by the complainant and that the trial court ought not to have acquitted the accused, since there is ample power for the court to call for the records and since the court has to see that the ends of justice are met.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 17 would contend that this is nor a fit case for interference by this Court and that therefore the order of acquittal should not be disturbed.

(3.) No doubt, the powers of this Court in a revision petition against the order of acquittal are limited. The Supreme Court, which had occasion to deal with the power of this Court in such a contingency, in two important decisions reported in Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, and Akulu Ahir v. Ramadeo Ram2, has delineated those powers and has laid down that whenever there is a failure of Justice, this Court should interfere and not otherwise. The Supreme Court has also in the first of the decision mentioned above, listed by way of illustration, some cases in which this Court should interferes and that list is not exhaustive.